On 3/10/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
It seems to me that the WA 1.0 spec presents requirements on document
conformance that are very different from each other in spirit in a
seemingly arbitrary way.
On one hand, some elements are
On Mar 10, 2006, at 00:08, Ian Hickson wrote:
Here are some of the things I'm worried about:
* It should be possible for scripts to add content to placeholder
elements without those placeholder elements being non-conformant.
This is a very useful programming idiom, not least of which
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Michael 'Ratt' Iannarelli wrote:
The fifth paragraph of 1.9. Terminology[1]:
The readability, the term URI is used to refer...
should read
For readability, the term URI is used to refer...
Fixed.
Last sentence in paragraph two of in 2.2.3. Event listeners[2]:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Aankhen wrote:
I understand that we're talking about a specification and so the
language must be precise. Keeping that warning in mind, I propose the
Earth-shaking alteration of dropping to exist from the sentence, so
that it reads:
Only attributes actually defined
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, L. David Baron wrote:
The following are comments on section 2.8 (Lists) of the 2006-02-16
draft of Web Applications 1.0 [1].
The text on list numbering seems to lack conformance criteria. The term
ordinal value of a list item should probably more clearly be a
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, L. David Baron wrote:
I'd like to see a little more information in the Status of this
Document section of Web Applications 1.0. In particular:
* Are there large sections likely to appear in the document in the
future? If so, what? Section 1.10 (Miscellaneous)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, James Graham wrote:
Is there a good reason that foo / cannot be valid HTML5?
Valid HTML5 with what semantics? The same as foo? In which case, what's
the advantage?
I mean, we could make
foo !!
...valid as well, but I don't see any good reason to do it.
In fact, it
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
What kind of approach to tag inference can HTML5 be expected to take?
It uses a specific algorithm modelled on a finite state machine.
Example:
pfoo
Is 'foo' an element that not allowed as a child of 'p' and, therefore,
implicitly closes the 'p'?
implementatino
--
dolphinling
http://dolphinling.net/
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, dolphinling wrote:
implementatino
Fixed, thanks.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think the text/html flavor of HTML5 should not allow the following SGML
minimization features (which are theoretically allowed in HTML 4), because
each of them causes problems in at least one of Opera, Firefox and Safari.
*
* /
Agreed.
*
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think it's pretty much guarenteed that HTML5's parsing model will be
able to generate DOMs that can't be serialised to conformant XML
syntax without dataloss.
I am assuming that those situations do not arise if the document is
conforming
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Unlike XML, SGML allows the omission of white space before the name of
an attribute if there is delimiter (ie. quote) before that. That is p
id=fooclass=bar is OK.
Windows IE 6, Mac IE 5.2.3, Opera 8.10, Deer Park trunk and Safari 1.3
all support
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I wrote a test page [1] to test the support for the syntax of hex and
numeric character refernces and entity references using all character
references defined in HTML4. It tests each with and without the REFC
delimiter (;).
It seems that IE
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, L. David Baron wrote:
On Monday 2005-10-31 10:53 +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The current web-apps draft:
| For styling languages that consist of pure text, user agents must use
| a concatenation of the contents of all the text nodes and CDATA nodes
| that are direct
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Simon Pieters wrote:
Omitted /p tags seems to be a bit of an issue in combination with INS
and DEL elements. How should a UA parse the following markup snippet?
pfooinspbar/ins
|
+-- P
| |
| +-- #text foo
| |
| +-- INS
|
+-- P
|
+-- #text
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Basically, when the parsing section gets written, it'll be written to
match the behaviour that the most browsers do.
I think the Mozilla behavior is easier to implement because it doesn't
require knowledge about the DTD. The Opera behavior
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Maniac wrote:
Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
I think the Mozilla behavior is easier to implement because it doesn't
require knowledge about the DTD. The Opera behavior cannot be implemented
without having the knowledge that an ins element cannot contain a p element.
I
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Mikko Rantalainen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Opera behavior cannot be implemented without having the knowledge that
an ins element cannot contain a p element.
It can contain a 'p' element. Only not when its parent is a 'p' element.
Well,
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
If the concern here is what the specification should say, then that's
what a valid state is, not what a valid document is, since the class of
predictably valid documents does not cover many dynamic documents.
That makes sense. I'm not sure what
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Off the top of my head, the changes from the HTML parsing output involve
(besides lowercasing names and putting elements in the XHTML 1.x namespace)
getting rid of the meta element conveying character encoding information,
Why? It doesn't need to be
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Simon Pieters wrote:
Hi,
There's a typo in the How to handle tokens in the main phase[1] section:
An end tag token whose tag name is option
If the current node is an opttion [...]
[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#how-to
Fixed.
* Ian Hickson wrote:
Currently the behaviour is very underspecified here:
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#documentEncoding
I'd like to rewrite that bit. It will require a lot of research; of
existing authoring practices, of current UAs, and of author needs. If
anyone wants to
On 3/11/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I've reworded the paragraph like this:
pSome conformance requirements are phrased as requirements on
elements, attributes, methods or objects. Such requirements fall
into two categories; those describing content model
24 matches
Mail list logo
