Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to
While you could say a raster image has an intrinsic size (I have no idea what the formal definition of this phrase is), SVGs *explicitly* state their size. To change the size, you would actually be violating the content of the image file itself. I think the best way to understand this would be to look over what an SVG is. The vectors are given a scale within the file, not externally. --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to
That would presumably because of the "intrinsic size" Anne referred to. SVG's contain scaling information; the size is designated in the image file. --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [whatwg] Load SVG via IMG element
My understanding is that SVG should not be scaled to fit given dimensions because scaling information is provided in the SVG itself. I don't know about the full status of SVG in browsers, but I know that Firefox supports some, and the Adobe plug-in is common. A full test suite is available at http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/ A specification for embedding SVG in XHTML can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/ and Mozilla provides some documentation at http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/SVG_In_HTML_Introduction On 10/4/07, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I noticed that Opera 9.5 can load an SVG image via the IMG element. I > think this is a wonderful thing. Is there any specification on how this > should work? For example, I noticed that Opera, for some reason, does not > scale SVG images to fit the box created by the IMG element's width and > height attributes. Here is a test page: > > http://xhtml.com/misc/svg-img.htm > > Can someone please point me to any specs on loading SVG via IMG element? > > Regards, > -Vlad > http://xhtml.com > > > -- ----------- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [whatwg] lede element
The proposal was purely for the sake of semantics. A styled appropiately via CSS works and looks fine. The element would obviously add no functionality. However, I though that this element would add more semantic richness and would be useful to news aggregators in particular as an alternative to using the first sentence (Google), the first paragraph (Yahoo) or the meta description(bbc). --- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
[whatwg] lede element
This is just an idea for what I consider to be a solidly semantic element.
It isn't necessary nor does it add any new functionality. However, it
removes one more need for additional span elements.
The lede element is an inline element useful for signifying the lede in a
document. It is commonly used term in journalism for the opening sentence or
two which introduces the article.
More detailed description can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_style#Terms_and_structure
Usage Case:
Burmese monks 'to be sent away'
Thousands of monks detained in Burma's main city of Rangoon will be
sent to prisons in the far north of the country, sources have told the
BBC. About 4,000 monks have been rounded up in the past week as the
military government has tried to stamp out pro-democracy protests. They are
being held at a disused race course and a technical college. Sources from a
government-sponsored militia said they would soon be moved away from
Rangoon...
A common styling (in CSS) would be
lede{font-weight:bold}
however, I would not imagine that to be default
---
Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
Devi Web Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Re: [whatwg] [Whatwg] Wish
First of all, I see no reason additional HTML tags would be helpful or necessary for what you are describing. Second, Javascript needs to be provided with more abilities for larger local storage beyond cookies. Luckily, there has been work on this by the WHATWG<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#storage>and even early implementation by Mozilla <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:Storage>. Third, you venture into a new area which I have not yet seen a formal proposal or specification for: ability for Javascript to access, save, and generally manipulate files. This is a logical step, the browser is becoming almost as an operating system on top of your operating system. The web applications often have nicer interfaces thanks to the ease of XHTML, CSS, and Javascript. Some web applications are trying to replace desktop applications altogether. Under careful security parameters, the same XHTML, CSS, and Javascript pages ought to be able to perform the same kinds of tasks as any computer application. There are several ways of doing this. WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>pointed out that LiveScript originally had abilities permitted only to local files. This is the easy way, it would simply let files on your computer do what files on your computer could always do. For web applications such as Bert is describing, they could also whitelisted. This should probably only happen after the user receives a one-time, scary warning message of the dangers to their computer. That sort of whitelist is probably the best way. Frankly, I don't really know, but I am convinced that Javascript is the Next Big Language <http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html>(well, at least a language which will continue to grow and prosper) and should have specifications in place to work with files, even if the security issues are not yet fully worked out. -- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Devi Web Development
Re: [whatwg] Text selection in IFrames
If I have a text selection in an iframe and select text or click on any element in the parent document the browsers behave differently On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Fabian Jakobs wrote: > What is the desired behavior in this case? On 8/1/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It depends on the platform's conventions. It's not really an interoperability issue as far as I can tell. Not an interoperability issue? One of the main benefits of HTML has been it's device-independence. Ideally, a page should look and act the same in every browser on every platform. Frankly, I don't see an application for using user-selected text, but if a script requests the selected text, it should be clear what the script is getting. ---- Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [whatwg] [WA1] Audio and relative URIs
On 8/3/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christian Biesinger wrote: > > > > the section on Audio, > http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#sound, > > says: > > > The Audio() constructor takes a single argument, a URI (or IRI), which > > > is resolved using the script context's window.location.href > > > > Does this mean that a possible should indeed be ignored here? I don't see why this should ignore the base tag. I would expect it to use document.baseURI as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407#core-Node3-baseURI which takes into account the tag. --- Devi Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
