Re: Intent to implement and ship: Improved ruby parsing in HTML with new tag omission rules

I think the WHATWG rules are not flexible enough for > multi-pair rubies, which limits both the semantization and the > stylability of documents. In other words, I don't think the two rule sets > address the same use cases, especially in perspective of semantics. The > W3C rules are mu

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Improved ruby parsing in HTML with new tag omission rules

Xidorn Quan , 2014-12-27 10:12 +1100: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: ... > > Xidorn Quan , 2014-12-26 04:41 -0800: > > ... > > > The difference in expression ability becomes more important when there > > > are words mixed with ka

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

RIES in such a way that any arbitrary string can be a valid CURIE. So in practice authors can put anything they want into meta[property] without the checker reporting any errors. —Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike signature.asc Description: Dig

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

in some off-list discussion with Anne, is the “Manifest for a web application” spec at https://w3c.github.io/manifest/ not relevant here? (Nothing to reverse engineer, since it has an actual spec—with defined processing requirements—and at least one other browser-engine project is also contributing

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

ser-engine project is also contributing to it and implementing it.) —Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform