... I understand why relational databases were used to build blog engines
and content management systems. For a long time that was all we had.
However, that's going to change fast. I expect that new systems are
going to be developed using pure and hybrid XML databases like Exist and
DB2 9. The
Elliotte Harold wrote:
However, after spending the last few days at XML 2006, I have a new
perspective on such systems I didn't have a week ago. In particular I
now believe that the relational databases that back these sites are
fundamentally the wrong technology. As Mark Logic's Jason Hunter
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Can I ask some really basic questions about this? (Jason Hunter's talk
didn't appear to be online.) Are there Exist equivalents for Python,
PHP, and Ruby programmers, or do we all need to use Java in the brave
new world?
For eXist I don't know. However the major
Robert Sayre wrote:
p class=questionsays who?
Says me. Says all the vendors who have put their capital into native XML
databases and not into native HTML databases.
One presumes a theoretical HTML database would support HTML. An XML
database supports that plus all the other uses of XML.
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:57:07 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The section If the child node is a Text or CDATASection node should
include the plaintext element.
plaintext in general isn't supported by the innerHTML spec -- for
example, it would always introduce a new /plaintext
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:54:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If such an attribute or mechanism have been discussed before, I'm sorry;
I don't read this list regularly -- it's much too crowded for that.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-menu has it.
--
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:15:45 +0600, Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another noteworthy problem with the common subset about scripting is
that it's really impractical to write some idioms. You can't have any
instance of or in a script without throwing the document outside
of the
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:54:12 +0600, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seeing how the select element is mostly used in the wild, I think an
'autosubmit' attribute on the select element will increase
accessibility because the current deployed solutions all depend on
JavaScript, usually
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:01:14 +0600, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it useful for a browser to make a list of a bunch of random feeds
that have no relation to one another or to the current page?
Well they sort of have a relation -- they're feeds that the author thinks
the user
Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 8 déc. 2006 à 15:20, Leons Petrazickis a écrit :
http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008444.html
Unlike Michel Fortin's proposal for script
type=image/svg+xml/script, I suggest that SVG included like this
be rendered as an image
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
The HTML5 spec could somehow officially bless CDATA only when used like
this:
script//![CDATA[
...
//]]/script
It would not harm because it is already interoperable.
It's technically already allowed because script and style elements are
defined to contain CDATA.
Le 9 déc. 2006 à 7:32, Martin Atkins a écrit :
Using script has the ultimate advantage that existing browsers
will *already* ignore it, while for some new element legacy
browsers will attempt to parse the contents as HTML and may end up
displaying something unintended. It's unclear how
Le 9 déc. 2006 à 7:50, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
The HTML5 spec could somehow officially bless CDATA only when used
like this:
script//![CDATA[
...
//]]/script
It would not harm because it is already interoperable.
It's technically already allowed because script and
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:44:05 +0600, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's an example. If this:
...text...
new-featureerroneous content/new-feature
...text...
...displays like this:
...text... ...text...
...in existing browsers, but like this:
...text... ERROR
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:50:58 +0600, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The HTML5 spec could somehow officially bless CDATA only when used like
this:
script//![CDATA[
...
//]]/script
It would not harm because it is already interoperable.
It's technically already allowed because script
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:54:29 +0600, Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd need a JavaScript fallback in addition to noscript, something like
this:
script type=text/xml id=a
xml-element/
/script
noscript id=b
fallback content
/noscript
script type=text/javascript
if (/*
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:35:19 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that noscript doesn't end up in DOM when scripting is
enabled.
Actually, it does.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
Michel Fortin wrote:
I've started a wiki page about the common subset:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Common_Subset
I'd like to explore this from a different angle.
Libraries (like html5lib) will likely provide a means to serialize a
DOM, and will presumably have unit tests.
The question is:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:29:03 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If there is no interest in standardizing a serialization (or separate
standard serializations form HTML5 and XHTML5), then this discussion
belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
2006/12/5, Michel Fortin:
It's interesting you mention script. If we want some sort of XML
data island, we could use something like this:
script type=text/xml
xml-content/
/script
Then, after the content of script has been gathered, the browser
could parse it as actual XML, stopping at the
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:29:03 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If there is no interest in standardizing a serialization (or separate
standard serializations form HTML5 and XHTML5), then this discussion
belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:09:58 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If there is no interest in standardizing a serialization (or separate
standard serializations form HTML5 and XHTML5), then this discussion
belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
On Dec 10, 2006, at 02:09, Sam Ruby wrote:
I am asking whether there is interest in identifying ONE standard
serialization that everybody who wishes to comply with could do so.
Why? For digital signatures? For comparing parse trees from different
parsers?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Dec 10, 2006, at 02:09, Sam Ruby wrote:
I am asking whether there is interest in identifying ONE standard
serialization that everybody who wishes to comply with could do so.
Why? For digital signatures? For comparing parse trees from different
parsers?
My train of
24 matches
Mail list logo
