Ian Hickson skrev:
In response to the concerns over the lack of transparency that have
recently been expressed both in these mailing lists and on blog posts, I
have written a tool that exposes the issues I have on my list:
http://www.whatwg.org/issues/
I was going to vote for the headers
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:07:26 +0200, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 23:43:55 +0200, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Color attributes in HTML have special processing.
Some tests/demos:
http://simon.html5.org/test/html/parsing/color-attributes/
Earlier today, Lachlan Hunt posed the following question
[http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070823#l-271]:
# [04:40] Lachy why do people keep overreacting and bringing up the
headers issue all the time?!
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0926.html
# [05:15] Hixie
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 10:40 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
[...] Despite protracted discussion (argument?) and a
formal submission from the WAI PF regarding the requirement of headers for
complicated tables on June 6, 2007
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html], the
Dan Connolly wrote:
I sympathize with your frustration, but I ask that you remain patient.
Dan,
Thank you for your prompt response. While patience is indeed a virtue, my
(our?) patience is being sorely tested, as while the official word is that
we're nowhere near deciding anything, current
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Keryx Web wrote:
Ian Hickson skrev:
In response to the concerns over the lack of transparency that have recently
been expressed both in these mailing lists and on blog posts, I have written
a tool that exposes the issues I have on my list:
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 12:14 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
Dan Connolly wrote:
I sympathize with your frustration, but I ask that you remain patient.
Dan,
Thank you for your prompt response. While patience is indeed a virtue, my
(our?) patience is being sorely tested, as while the
Dan Connolly wrote:
* Is Lachlan Hunt definitive when stating, HTML5 now defines the
usemap attribute as a Hashed ID Reference, not a URI, and can only
reference maps within the same document.
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643], as well as
HTML5 currently will not be
(If you reply, please only include one of the mailing lists in your
reply. Thanks.)
So I read through all the offline Web app discussions:
http://www.whatwg.org/issues/#filesystem
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_localserver.html
http://www.campd.org/stuff/Offline%20Cache.html
On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
IDEA
Ok so here's my idea based on the existing ideas, the comments on
those
ideas, and so forth. One of my main goals was keeping everything as
simple
as possible.
My proposal is that we add a new attribute to the html element,
which
On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:43 PM, John Foliot wrote:
* Is Maciej Stachowiak correct when he states, This feature is
underspecified in HTML4, and not implemented by IE. It is also
likely
to be dropped in HTML5 and may be removed from Mozilla and Opera
as a
result.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I haven't read over the details but there seems to be an obvious
showstopper problem: this won't work for web applications that consist
of more than one page.
Indeed, that was called out as a potential issue. But is that really a
problem? It's
John, Dan and Maciej wrote:
[snip]
I'd like to request, if that is at all possible, that we keep this kind of
discussion out of the WHATWG mailing list.
Insofar as the WHATWG and the WHATWG HTML5 document are concerned, people
are welcome to make any statements they like, especially on
On Aug 23, 2007 8:18 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I haven't read over the details but there seems to be an obvious
showstopper problem: this won't work for web applications that consist
of more than one page.
Indeed, that was
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Aaron Boodman wrote:
The single-page model has other nice advantages. For example, there's
never any confusion about which cache should serve a resource. It's the
one that's associated with the application which the resource is
contained in.
Indeed.
Could
15 matches
Mail list logo
