On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Imagine that there is a popular mobile device with a Web browser. Imagine
> further that this browser is widely used, despite having no support for
> Flash, no support for W3C File Upload, and not even any support
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ernest Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> >From: Mike Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: May 15, 2008 8:02 AM
> >To: 'WHATWG' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog
> >
> >Yes, I also quite like th
-Original Message-
>From: Mike Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 15, 2008 8:02 AM
>To: 'WHATWG' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog
>
>Yes, I also quite like the analogy with dl/ul/ol. But it may
>be confusing when using dt and dd as child elements (
On May 15, 2008, at 8:33 PM, Jon Barnett wrote:
...
The Yahoo! UI toolkit [1] allows a developer to create a "browse" that
looks like whatever he wants it to and can be controlled by javascript
pretty much however he wants it to.
...
That Yahoo widget uses Flash and Javascript to make all that ha
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Křištof Želechovski wrote:
I do not feel like having the file submission control styled and
customized in any way; submitting a file poses a serious security and
privacy risk so I would not like to see this control disguised as
something e
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
I believe this can happen in a number of ways, the simplest being that
Page A calls a function on Page B. But I suspect there are also events
that can fire in Page B even after it has closed.
Actually per spec, if
Getting suport from Lynx is the easy part; the hard part is to get the
supporting Lynx to all those BBS out there. This is very much different
from the personal browser the user can control.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Hi
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> I thought the "rev" attribute was being added back? (Someone... I can't
> remember who... came on the Microformats mailing list, a while ago, and
> said something to that effect.)
I have no plans to, evidence showed it was causing authors
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I always press 'c' before going hunting for a
> contact address. It usually doesn't work, but that's life I guess.
>
> Ian: would it be too much to have the spec say that @rev is valid if and
> only if its value is "made" or "
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Samuel Santos wrote:
>>
>> I don't think this is a valid argument since you can change it anyway [1].
>>
>> [1] http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/inputfile.html
>
> I should note that some consider this a (low priority, low sev
Hello,
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Nicholas Shanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, at 12:11 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 May 2008, Křištof Želechovski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Removing @rev is harmful for Lynx because that is how it decides who the
>>> author is.
>>>
>>
> Re
The method to disguise a file input control as described is and should
remain a dirty trick; if the user agent allows it, some add-on should detect
it and offer a warning. Allowing semantic customization could be
interpreted as encouragement.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:46:32 + (UTC)
Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>さん wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Toshirou Takahashi wrote:
> >
> > about 2.12. Scripting
> >
> > http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-script
> > interface HTMLScriptElement : HTMLElement {
> >attrib
On 14 May 2008, at 12:11 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Křištof Želechovski wrote:
Removing @rev is harmful for Lynx because that is how it decides
who the
author is.
Removing rev="" from the spec doesn't preclude Lynx still supporting
it
for legacy documents, and for new d
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> My personal favorite alternate suggestion so far has
> been .
Yes, I also quite like the analogy with dl/ul/ol. But it may
be confusing when using dt and dd as child elements (as in
the current spec for dialog):
...
That could be resolved by introduci
Ernest Cline wrote:
The only synonym of dialog that is anywhere near as general seems to be .
And I accidentally replied off list:
Discourse is too general.
In philosophy and theology a discourse can mean "teaching", as in
"Levinas' discourse about 'the other' has made alterity a recurring
On May 15, 2008, at 12:57, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Shouldn't iframe keep its width and height attributes just like the
other embedded content elements?
Documents don't have intrinsic dimensions, and the user's default font
size is likely to vary from user
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> Shouldn't iframe keep its width and height attributes just like the
> other embedded content elements?
Documents don't have intrinsic dimensions, and the user's default font
size is likely to vary from user to usr. How would you know what height
and
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Benoit Piette wrote:
>
> Another thing I like about the proposal apart from the
> consistent API across browsers is that controls buttons could be
> generated by the browser, which would leed to a consistent user
> interface within the browser. This would be good for usabil
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>
> What do you guys think about this -- and this is just theoresizing and
> hypothizing :)
>
> Print representation, if defined, should probably not be viewed as the
> byproduct of the screen presentation.
>
> For instance, if script modified DOM pro
On May 14, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Křištof Želechovski wrote:
I do not feel like having the file submission control styled and
customized in any way; submitting a file poses a serious security
and privacy risk so I would not like to see this control disguised
as something else. Just like an ale
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Charles wrote:
>
> The element supports width and height. Does this include the
> additional area needed (if necessary) by the controls? It strikes me
> that it shouldn't, since it would be odd for the video width and height
> to change when non-video "decorators" are sh
22 matches
Mail list logo
