Thomas Much wrote:
am 19.01.2006 23:50 Uhr schrieb Tyler Close unter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, they'll just disable it
Why hasn't this happened to the HTTP Referer header?
There are browsers out there that let the user disable the HTTP referrer
(and enable it only for certain sites that require
am 19.01.2006 23:50 Uhr schrieb Tyler Close unter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> No, they'll just disable it
> Why hasn't this happened to the HTTP Referer header?
There are browsers out there that let the user disable the HTTP referrer
(and enable it only for certain sites that require it for whatever re
Hi Jim,
On 1/19/06, Jim Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Tyler Close <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it would be fair to characterize current techniques for link
> > click tracking as "opaque". In contrast, the proposed "ping" attribute
> > explicitly declares in the HTML what i
On 1/19/06, Tyler Close <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it would be fair to characterize current techniques for link
> click tracking as "opaque". In contrast, the proposed "ping" attribute
> explicitly declares in the HTML what is intended and how it will
> happen. Perhaps the right way to ex
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:38:41 +0600, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And boy does it suggest this feature will be a marketing problem :(
> Darin Fisher blogged the Mozilla implementation[1] and received a stream
> of comments, many from people who clearly haven't thought about how easy
> t
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:05:30 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is because the "title" attribute is not important for the element
its
_contents_. Without the "alt" attribute becomes meaningless for
devices
(and people) who can not interpreted images. Now I guess that
Quoting Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I wonder why alt is a required attribute for IMG in HTML while an
empty value is allowed.
Because an empty value means that there is no alternate text and no
attribute at
all means that alternate text is missing. (Which is clearly not what
yo
On 1/19/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I wonder why alt is a required attribute for IMG in HTML while an
> > empty value is allowed.
>
> Because an empty value means that there is no alternate text and no
> attribute at
> all
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:44:29 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder why alt is a required attribute for IMG in HTML while an
empty value is allowed.
Because an empty value means that there is no alternate text and no
attribute at
all means that alternate text is mis
Quoting Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I wonder why alt is a required attribute for IMG in HTML while an
empty value is allowed.
Because an empty value means that there is no alternate text and no
attribute at
all means that alternate text is missing. (Which is clearly not what
you
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:38:41 +0600, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And boy does it suggest this feature will be a marketing problem :(
Darin Fisher blogged the Mozilla implementation[1] and received a stream
of comments, many from people who clearly haven't thought about how easy
t
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:43:42 +0600, Matthew Paul Thomas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In HTML 4 alt= is an attribute for , , and . I can
think of no reason for slightly more sense, for non-interactive UAs), and Web Applications 1.0
currently includes an "applets" HTMLCollection but no element
12 matches
Mail list logo
