Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: In the conformance requirements for Web Forms 2 [1], it states: | This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the | HTML4, ... Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those | specifications to claim compliance with this one. Because it says must implement *all* the requirements of those specifications (rather than just all the form-related requirements) and since there are no strictly conforming HTML 4 implementations in existence, does this not make it impossible for any existing browsers to ever conform to WF2? Existing browsers can't conform to WF2 because they don't implement WF2. In the future they can conform to WF2 by implementing the bits of HTML4, WF2, etc, that they don't support. At the end of that section, it also states in the note: | Note: Documents that use the new features described in this | specification cannot be strictly conforming XHTML or HTML4 documents, | since they contain features not defined in those specifications. Shouldn't that say XHTML 1.0 or 1.1? Fair point. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[whatwg] [html5] 2.6. Phrase elements
* 2.6.1. The a element
I was wondering if you could give some more examples for the specific
attributes. For example:
a[type=application/pdf]::after{
content: url(pdf-icon)
}
* 2.6.6. The abbr element
It seems the TITLE attribute here has a very specific content model.
Perhaps it should be specific for the ABBR element instead of reusing
the global TITLE attribute?
# The title attribute may be omitted if there is a dfn element in the
# document whose defining term is the abbreviation.
I think this sentence might need some clarification. Is it something
like the following:
abbrW3C/abbr
...
dfn title=World Wide Web Consortium...
... so I don't have to provide a TITLE for ABBR because DFN already has
one with the same value? I don't think that makes sense...
I also wonder, as some elements have further restricted content models.
Is it expected that ABBR elements may nest? (Perhaps this should be a
more general question as it applies to some other elements in this
section as well.)
* 2.6.12. The kbd element
How can this element only be used in strictly inline-level content but
sometimes contain inline-level content. That doesn't work. If that is
changed and inline-level content is still allowed I would like to see an
example in the specification.
* 2.6.13. The sup and sub elements
Shouldn't the second example use the I element?
* 2.6.15. The q element
It looks like this has the same problem as 2.6.12. (A Q element to
contain a BLOCKQUOTE?)
The link of the CITE attribute links to the CITE element...
* 2.6.16. The cite element
Could this element get a note saying that it should not be used for
quotations. Perhaps an invalid example would help as well.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
Anne van Kesteren wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: Could some of these be improved and included within web apps? http://lachy.id.au/dev/markup/specs/wclr/ I haven't read it completely, but this sentence sounds incorrect: # Designates a resource containing user contributed comments. May be # used in conjunction with feed to designate a syndication format # resource for comments. If you are proposing |rel=feed comments| that would imply that the link is both about comments and is a feed. I don't understand the problem. The comments relationship doesn't say it's about comments, it says contains comments. The definitions for comments and feed are: comments Designates a resource containing user contributed comments... feed Designates a resource used as a syndication format. With comments and feed, it should indicate a resource used as a syndication format containing user contributed comments. Perhaps the sentence you cited above could be clarified to reflect this better. |rel=alternate stylesheet| was an error from the HTML4 WG (I discussed this with fantasai on IRC) because it actually says that the resource linked to is both an alternate representation of the current page and is a stylesheet. However, it actually is an 'alternate stylesheet' for the current page opposed to the default stylesheet linked with |rel=stylesheet|. I somewhat agree with this, although it seems that it is just the definition of alternate that is poorly worded. If it were defined more like this, alternate stylesheet would be more appropriate: Designates substitute versions for the document in which the link occurs or, when used in conjuntion with another link type, an alternate version of the resource type indicated. (that definition is not perfect, but I think you'll understand what its supposed to mean anyway) I suggest you fix that (and others, if they exist) ambiguity first. Also note that we probably don't need |rel=permalink| as the link inside an ARTICLE element with a value of bookmark probably does that already. I somewhat disagree that bookmark does this. It's defined as: ...A bookmark is a link to a key entry point within an extended document... Unless I'm mistaken, a permanet link for the document doesn't really seem to fit that defintion. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Re: [whatwg] [html5] 2.6. Phrase elements
Ian Hickson wrote: I've added an example. Ok, so order isn't important. You want to add a closing DFN tag by the way. (To the example.) * 2.6.12. The kbd element How can this element only be used in strictly inline-level content but sometimes contain inline-level content. That doesn't work. I'm confused about what you mean here. inline-level content includes strictly inline-level content. Well, the draft states (this is SAMP): # Contexts in which this element may be used: # Where strictly inline-level content is allowed. So it may only be used in strictly inline-level context, right? How can otherwise ever apply: # Content model: # When used in an element whose content model is only strictly # inline-level content: only strictly inline-level content. # Otherwise: any inline-level content. ..? * 2.6.15. The q element It looks like this has the same problem as 2.6.12. (A Q element to contain a BLOCKQUOTE?) I don't understand the problem. If the person you are quoting was themselves quoting a block from elsewhere, where's the problem? Like qfoo bar and then citeIan/cite said: blockquote pWell, I don't want to go into details right now.../p p... but this looks like a very ugly markup construct.../p /blockquote however, he was of course wrong, as this kind of nesting is actually kind a cool, not?/q ..? It looks terrible imho. Not something you put inline or so. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
Lachlan Hunt wrote: With comments and feed, it should indicate a resource used as a syndication format containing user contributed comments. Perhaps the sentence you cited above could be clarified to reflect this better. Using two link values gives the link two relations, not one. I somewhat agree with this, although it seems that it is just the definition of alternate that is poorly worded. If it were defined more like this, alternate stylesheet would be more appropriate: Designates substitute versions for the document in which the link occurs or, when used in conjuntion with another link type, an alternate version of the resource type indicated. (that definition is not perfect, but I think you'll understand what its supposed to mean anyway) I do, but I'm not sure if it would be correct. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] HTML5: New link-types regarding guideline 2.4 in WCAG 2.0
Lachlan Hunt wrote: Using two link values gives the link two relations, not one. Yes, but don't both relationships apply to the one resource, so their semantics are combined? Not as I understand it. For example, a resource could be both the 'prev' document and the 'index'. What would be the combined semantics of |rel=index prev| or |rel=prev index|... -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
Ian Hickson wrote: But there are parts of HTML4 that will never be supported by mainstream browsers Then they won't be compliant to HTML4, or specs that extend HTML4 (like WF2). Then why write a spec that no browser will ever be able to be fully compliant with due to backwards compatibiltiy constraints? This will be addressed in Web Apps 1 / HTML5. Ok. Perhaps this bit from section 2.2 Existing Controls, can be moved or copied up to the conformance requirements. | Compliant UAs must follow all the guidelines given in the HTML4 | specification *except those modified by this specification*. Fair point. Done. I also made it (as you suggested, I think) only the forms-related parts. Yes, that looks good. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Re: [whatwg] [html5] 2.6. Phrase elements
Ian Hickson wrote:
a[type=application/pdf]::after{ content: url(pdf-icon) }
That's an example of CSS, not of HTML. But yes, I'm all for more
examples in general. Send them in, the best ones will get added to
the spec! :-)
True. However, it does show a use case for the attribute.
You could also say something like: A visual UA might display |a
href=foo type=application/pdf| as: [example rendering] where
[example rendering] is an image of a link with a PDF icon after it.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] Image maps: should we drop a coords=?
Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: Anyone want us to keep a coords=? The reason I especially liked it was: object data=foo usemap=#foo map id=foo ul lia coords=../a ... Yup, it is indeed nice; if image maps had been designed that way from the start it would make sense. But it's not _that_ much nicer than area, which we could define as allowing: object data=foo usemap=#foo map id=foo ul liarea coords=... href=...a href=../a ... ...which isn't much worse, and has the very important benefit of actually working in IE6. This would seem to undermine your position with regards to using the a element for menu labels: | menubar id=appmenu | a href=#fileFile/a | menu Contrast this with the following: | menubar id=appmenu | menulabela href=#fileFile/a/menulabel | menu It's essentially the same scenario. In both situations, a is being used in a situation where alternative, more semantically appropriate markup already exists for the purposes of fallback. However, as illustrated in both your example and mine, a could simply be used within the same alternative markup to create fallback without overloading the semantics of a. So, with implementations of a coords= existing and gaining marketshare, why is a coords= being phased out while a href=#[menu] for use _within_ menus is being phased in?
[whatwg] WebForms 2.0 and object controls
Hello! Doing a quick read through the submitted WebForms 2.0 proposal, I didn't see at any place that it addressed object elements as form controls, something that HTML4.01 forms did. Shouldn't WebForms 2.0 address this part of the HTML4.01 forms as well? -- David liorean Andersson uri:http://liorean.web-graphics.com/
Re: [whatwg] WebForms 2.0 and object controls
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, liorean wrote: Doing a quick read through the submitted WebForms 2.0 proposal, I didn't see at any place that it addressed object elements as form controls, something that HTML4.01 forms did. Shouldn't WebForms 2.0 address this part of the HTML4.01 forms as well? Web Forms 2 is an addition to HTML4, not a replacement, so you'll be glad to know that the form submission parts of object still apply in WF2. HTH, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [html5] 2.6. Phrase elements
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: I've added an example. You want to add a closing DFN tag by the way. (To the example.) Fixed. Well, the draft states (this is SAMP): # Contexts in which this element may be used: # Where strictly inline-level content is allowed. So it may only be used in strictly inline-level context, right? It can be used where strictly inline-level content is allowed. Strictly inline-level content is allowed in content models that say strictly inline-level content and in content models that say inline-level content (the latter includes both strictly inline-level content and structured inline-level content). I'm very open to better names. How can otherwise ever apply: # Content model: # When used in an element whose content model is only strictly # inline-level content: only strictly inline-level content. # Otherwise: any inline-level content. ..? One example would be dt vs dd. dt only allows strictly inline-level content, dd allows any kind of inline content (or alternatively block-level content, but that's another story). Like qfoo bar and then citeIan/cite said: blockquote pWell, I don't want to go into details right now.../p p... but this looks like a very ugly markup construct.../p /blockquote however, he was of course wrong, as this kind of nesting is actually kind a cool, not?/q ..? It looks terrible imho. Not something you put inline or so. There have actually been examples of this in this in the past few weeks, enough to convince me that in some cases it is a valid use case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
