On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, fantasai wrote:
>
> BTW, for 'dir', I think the inheritance behavior should be a little more
> clearly specified:
>
> # If the attribute is omitted or has another value, then the directionality
> # is unchanged.
>
> Unchanged from what?
This changed a while ago to say "same
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Robin Berjon wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
> > # The whitespace characters U+0020 SPACE, U+000A LINE FEED, and U+000D
> > CARRIAGE # RETURN are always allowed between elements.
> >
> > What about U+0009 TAB?
>
> And NEL and VERTICAL TAB?
All the above except NEL have now been spac
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote:
> On 8 Dec, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In the current spec, may be nested, but this doesn't
> > > > imply hiearchical menus like in the HTML4 spec. It would just mean
> > > > inden
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > Also, if we're going to be inconsistent in how current browsers and web
> > > pages handle multiple s, why not simply use the first for
> > > both href="" and target=""?
> >
> > Done.
>
> I realized another limitation. It is ve
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>
> Has the topic of automatic serialization and deserialization of objects
> passed across postMessage() come up already? It seems like boolean,
> number, string, arrays, and objects should be supported.
>
> I realize that you can just use a json librar
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:54:25 -, Philip Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's quite a different situation when the Referer is used as a security
measure in deciding to trust a user's request, where false negatives can
have significant consequences (like editing data via cross-site request
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Collin Jackson wrote:
>
> Here is a suggestion for a backwards-compatible addition to the
> postMessage specification:
>
> Currently postMessage is great for sending authenticated messages
> between frames. The receiver knows exactly where each message came from.
> However
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Jeff Walden wrote:
>
> I briefly wrote up some documentation on postMessage for the Mozilla
> Developer Center:
>
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:window.postMessage
>
> If you pull it up, you'll note two places where I include big, huge,
> overbearing, somewhat-e
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:25:51 -, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That would mean that passing ImageData around between two
elements doesn't always work as expected. I think that's highly
undesirable. Is there any implementation where we know this will the
case?
Not today, but why pr
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jeff Walden wrote:
>
> I assume you meant without the trailing slash, given that that's
> actually part of the path?
Yes.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Th
It seems to be a natural idea to save Web application state from an
unload event handler. But is it guaranteed that client-side database
API is still functional at this point? And if it is - can one queue
up more statements and/or transactions from statement callbacks?
I see two options her
Ian Hickson wrote:
* message.domain isn't actually enough to verify any security, given that
on shared hosts one IP address can map to several hostnames and thuspeople
can end up running servers on different ports that respond torequests from
domains they don't own.
* message.uri
While going through the feedback for postMessage(), I noticed a couple of
security problems that nobody had raised:
* message.domain isn't actually enough to verify any security, given that
on shared hosts one IP address can map to several hostnames and thus
people can end up running se
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Brian Smith wrote:
>
> If there was an element [or role='advertisement'] or
> equivalent, then its use would quickly become a mandatory accessibility
> requirement, and its use would pretty much be required by any site built
> by anybody with any money to lose. Similarly,
to list as well.
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Feb 2008 16:46
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML 5 vs. XHTML 2.0
To: Brian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 12/02/2008, Brian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I don't recommend an element.
James Graham wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > How should advertisements be marked up?
> >
> It's worth considering that an element (or
> or whatever you decide to call it) would just cause style
> rules like advert {display:none;} to become widespread (e.g.
> by integration into Adblock and
Brian Smith wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Anyway, I do think it's a problem for styling, automatic content
extraction and non-CSS presentation that HTML lacks the markup for
indicating which parts of the page are content proper and which are
navig
17 matches
Mail list logo
