On 1/14/06, Jim Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you want to change the content of all elements that matched
> a particular selector?
>
> Could you explain some use cases?
Julien Couvreur wrote:
> One of the main uses is to bind behaviors to elements. This allows for
> a clean markup wit
Hi,
I think that we should use instead of [1]. It will stand for marked
or highlighted. The reason for this is backwards compability. I think it's
ok, given that we have to stand for "unordered association list", while
we havn't given it the name (or simular).
If we use , Google is alread
Hi,
Consider the following snippet:
PASS
According to the spec there are two comments, first a bogus comment
containing "--", then a real comment containing ">FAILOpera does. However, according to Mozilla there are two comments, first a
real comment containing ">PASS
I think that Opera is
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:55:43 -0800, Lachlan Hunt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm confused. The subject of this thread you started is "Should ID be
required for ?", yet now when a suggestion requires the use of an
ID, you point out holes in it by trying to show that the required use of
an
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:39:29 -0800, Matthew Paul Thomas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If authors -- or specifications -- try too hard to use a semantic
element, or to force other people to use it, it will be misused so much
that UAs can no longer trust the element to have any particular meaning,
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:14:20 -0800, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
can't possibly be defined to mean two different things while
staying in
the same namespace. Well, I suppose it could be based on the context it
is
placed in, but I think that would get confusing.
Hmm, I was
Simon Pieters wrote:
I think that Opera is correct and that Mozilla is wrong, but I wanted to
send this to the list before I file a bug.
I agree with your interpretation and actually have a patch that fixes
Mozilla's behavior on comments that start with 'attach to a bug that you file in the co
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:18:46 -0800, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoting "Eugene T.S. Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
is no more semantic that , , or , yet they
have their uses.
I believe that they are useful for visual user agents, in that we
don't have to provide a class
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:00:21 -0800, Alexey Feldgendler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:19:22 +0600, Sander Tekelenburg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a thought: perhaps applicable elements (those with a non-empty
title
attribute) could have an optional src attribute co
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:13:43 +0600, Eugene T.S. Wong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm used to thinking of HREF as something that takes me to another place,
and SRC as something that brings something here.
Would it be appropriate to allow designers and developers to use SRC in
? For example:
10 matches
Mail list logo