Re: [whatwg] getElementsByCSSSelector

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

[whatwg] Use instead of

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

[whatwg] Bogus comment treated as a real comment in Mozilla

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

Re: [whatwg] Should ID be required for ?

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

Re: [whatwg] Presentational elements in Web Applications 1.0

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,

Re: [whatwg] Element

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

Re: [whatwg] Bogus comment treated as a real comment in Mozilla

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

Re: [whatwg] , , ,

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

[whatwg] SRC Vs. HREF

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

Re: [whatwg] SRC Vs. HREF

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: