On Jan 12, 2007, at 05:25, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Is the effort to get people to use CSS instead of spacer GIFs a bad
idea?
Is the effort to get people to use h1..h6 instead of pb or
pfont a bad idea?
No. In those cases the alternatives are substantially different
technically. Not
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-font
The definition of font and style='' seems like a compromise that
isn't good for either side of the style='' debate. Can it be
reconsidered, please?
Using font style='' as a block container is less backwards
compatible than div
Hi Mike,
That would be so nice to see such a proposal accepted for HTML 5.0, in
addition to adding support for PUT and DELETE actions.
Even though the URI template RFC is not finalized yet, we already have a
complete support for it, on the server-side, in the Restlet framework.
We happily
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:41:42 +0100, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the effort to get people to use CSS instead of table for layout a
bad idea?
It often is, sadly. When people really, really want a grid layout model
and try to fake it with positioning or floats, the result tends to
There's been some debate about the |cite| attribute versus the cite
element. There problem with the attribute is that it doesn't allow for
non-text content and isn't visible on legacy browsers. The problem with
the element is that there are no means of associating it with quotes or
blockquotes.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:51:05 +0100, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, why not overload the |cite| attribute so that it's valid to use
the URL for a cite element? Example:
| p
| q cite=#HixieHow times have changed/q, said
| cite id=Hixie
| a
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:16:04 +0100, Spartanicus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CSS table layouts share all of the many drawbacks of HTML table layouts,
except for the false semantics (one of the least significant issues
IMO).
I agree, CSS needs something like the XUL flexible box model.
Afaics
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:22:25 +0100, Jerome Louvel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That would be so nice to see such a proposal accepted for HTML 5.0, in
addition to adding support for PUT and DELETE actions.
FYI, Web Forms 2 which in due course will be part of the HTML5 proposal
already includes
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:03:34 +0100, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, I suggest allowing style='' on all elements, because only
allowing it on div and span would only move WYSIWYG output even more
to the direction of Karl Dubost's caricature of HTML 6.0.
I second that.
Hello,
I've recently been musing over some ideas around sandboxing scripts and
styles within a document [1]. The basic idea is to have some means of
isolating potentially untrustworthy scripts.
From my blog entry: Scripts within the sandbox would only see the DOM
of the sandbox. Methods
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:34:03 +0100, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whatever shape the mechanism ultimately takes, having a way of isolating
scripts within a document would be extremely beneficial.
Thoughts?
Use an iframe and use cross-document messaging? This has been discussed
a
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:34:03 +0100, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whatever shape the mechanism ultimately takes, having a way of isolating
scripts within a document would be extremely beneficial.
Thoughts?
Use an iframe and use cross-document messaging? This
* James M Snell wrote:
Whatever shape the mechanism ultimately takes, having a way of isolating
scripts within a document would be extremely beneficial.
It would be helpful if you could first explain what pain you are trying
to solve and how your solution would solve it. For example, a malicious
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:34:03 +0100, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whatever shape the mechanism ultimately takes, having a way of isolating
scripts within a document would be extremely beneficial.
+1. I think having a separate HTML element is the wrong solution, but a
CSS property
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:53:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CSS property has already been mentioned on this list, but the
discussion faded kind of quick so I would like to bring it up again.
Probably because CSS is off-topic for this list. There's www-style for
that.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:37:43 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whatever shape the mechanism ultimately takes, having a way of isolating
scripts within a document would be extremely beneficial.
Use an iframe and use cross-document messaging? This has been
discussed a lot by
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:09:40 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use an iframe and use cross-document messaging? This has been
discussed a lot by the way.
Frames are a terrible solution. The content is after all a part of the
page it's hosted in, but we want to sandbox it to
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
[snip]
Frames are a terrible solution. The content is after all a part of the
page it's hosted in, but we want to sandbox it to make sure it can't
do any harm.
The proposed alternative is severely underdefined and won't work for the
foreseeable future anyway.
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:30 PM, James M Snell wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
[snip]
Frames are a terrible solution. The content is after all a part
of the
page it's hosted in, but we want to sandbox it to make sure it can't
do any harm.
The proposed alternative is severely underdefined
Why not to do something like this:
function evalInSandbox(str)
{
var window = null; // shields of global objects
var document = { managedThunk1: function() {...}; managedThunk2:
function()
{...}; }
var self = null;
function getElement(id)
{
}
Comments on a blog, no. (I'm not sure who brought up that use case). I'm
thinking more along the lines of widgets embedded into a page. E.g.,
many users of our internal blogs like to embed widgets from various
external sites into their templates. Many of these are embedded using
script src=... /.
21 matches
Mail list logo
