Pentasis writes:
[Asbjørn Ulsberg writes:]
However, as you write and as HTML5 defines it, there is nothing
wrong with small per se, and I agree that as an element indicating
smallprint, it works just fine.
Since my initial reply might have been a bit too colored by the HTML4
[didn't notice this discussion at the time]
Garrett Smith wrote on 20 August 2008 04:08
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is window.onerror not enough?
window.onerror would be sufficient if it:
* accepted an Error parameter.
* fired when an
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Why does WA 1.0 require the year to be exactly 4 digits long when in WF
2.0 it is four or more digits?
Fixed.
Why doesn't WA 1.0 make 1 AD the first year thus dodging the year zero
issue like WF 2.0?
Fixed.
Have I understood correctly, that
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Singer schrieb:
IF we are to do this, I would have thought it would be by adding units to
the where to seek to argument:
* go to this time in NPT (normal play time, which runs from 0 to media
duration)
* go to this
Relative seeking is always possible: currentTime+=10. Proportional
seeking is possible as long as the duration is known and finite.
I would avoid as far as possible any use of byte positions as this
information isn't exactly trivial to get given all the buffering and
asynchronous decoding
Le Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:36:10 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote:
I know it's rather very late for comments and suggestions to WebForms 2.
Yet, I think they are welcome for future versions. Hixie, if you have
any notes (or whatever) about WF3,
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote:
I know it's rather very late for comments and suggestions to WebForms 2.
Yet, I think they are welcome for future versions. Hixie, if you have
any notes (or whatever) about WF3, please also include this suggestion
(if you haven't done so already).
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#kinds-of-content
In the list of categories near the beginning of that section, it
includes Form control content. But this isn't mentioned or described
anywhere else in the spec. Is its inclusion in the list intentional
Ian Hickson wrote:
While I could see that maybe one day there'd be a use case for time that
would need historical dates, I really think that we'd have to tackle other
calendars in use today before looking at calendars that aren't in use
anymore. So I'd rather punt this for now.
While it is
Ian Hickson wrote:
As can be seen in the feedback below, there is interest in improving the
experience with logging in and out of Web sites.
Currently there are two main mechanisms: HTTP authentication, and
cookie-based authentication with a form login.
Benefits of form authentication
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
While I could see that maybe one day there'd be a use case for time that
would need historical dates, I really think that we'd have to tackle other
calendars in use today before looking at calendars that
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Well, the length attribute could be an indication about such limit
and could accept a generic value, such as 'unknown' (or '0', with
the same meaning - just to have only numerical values) to indicate
an endless stream (i.e. a
Smylers wrote:
Asbjørn Ulsberg writes:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:26:22 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band
information about the semantics of the typesetting. However,
smaller things are less noticeable, and it's
- Original Message -
From: Tab Atkins Jr.
To: Pentasis
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Issues relating to the syntax of dates and times
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Smylers wrote:
Asbjørn Ulsberg writes:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:26:22 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band
information about the
I suddenly noticed this line in the spec:
The primary use cases for these elements are for marking up publication dates
e.g. in blog entries, and for marking event dates in hCalendar markup. Thus the
DOM APIs are likely to be used as ways to generate interactive calendar widgets
or some such.
Eric Carlson ha scritto:
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Well, the length attribute could be an indication about such limit
and could accept a generic value, such as 'unknown' (or '0', with the
same meaning - just to have only numerical values) to indicate an
Hello,
Quick question, Is there a list of browsers that support the video and
audio tags ?
Thanks
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
Hi Ian,
thanks a lot for this proposal which seems to go into the right direction.
I didn't yet have time to look into this in detail, but it currently
seems to require the UA to still parse the HTML page. Wouldn't it be
better of the *headers* of the response (such as WW-Authenticate, Link,
Am Dienstag, den 25.11.2008, 17:46 + schrieb Martin McEvoy:
Hello,
Quick question, Is there a list of browsers that support the video and
audio tags ?
First, i think this is the WRONG mailing list for questions like this.
Second, FF Nighlies (Minefield), Opera Demo Build, Safari (and
Hi all,
currently it isn't specified anywhere (AFAIK) what should happen
if the element which has an accesskey attribute is hidden using
display:none.
HTML4 says the following:
Pressing an access key assigned to an element gives focus to the element. The action that occurs when an element
Silvia Pfeiffer schrieb:
In any case - if you (and also Chris Double) are satisfied with the
estimates you're getting for file duration/length - I'll stop arguing
for it. It would be nice to hear some experimental evidence about how
well it's doing, e.g. for typical movie trailers, so we can
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Stijn Peeters wrote:
...
It makes sense to clear these values when the field is focused, as the
user will probably want to insert a new value rather than edit the
value that is currently in it. Currently this is mostly
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#kinds-of-content
In the list of categories near the beginning of that section, it
includes Form control content. But this isn't mentioned or described
anywhere else in the
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
The primary use cases for these elements are for marking up publication
dates e.g. in blog entries, and for marking event dates in hCalendar
markup. Thus the DOM APIs are likely to be used as ways to generate
interactive calendar widgets or some such.
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
This bit confused the hell out of me. Like Martin Atkins (no
relation... probably) suggested, whenever someone's auth is bad for
whatever reason I redirect them to the login page, possibly with an
error message explaining what went wrong.
You
Ian Hickson wrote:
...
I didn't yet have time to look into this in detail, but it currently
seems to require the UA to still parse the HTML page. Wouldn't it be
better of the *headers* of the response (such as WW-Authenticate, Link,
...) would contain sufficient information to perform the
Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course that's possible, but, as you noticed too, only by
redefining the small semantics, and is not a best choice per se.
That's both
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Silvia Pfeiffer schrieb:
In any case - if you (and also Chris Double) are satisfied with the
estimates you're getting for file duration/length - I'll stop arguing
for it. It would be nice to hear some experimental evidence
- Original Message -
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Issues relating to the syntax of dates and times
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
The primary use
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
Hi all,
currently it isn't specified anywhere (AFAIK) what should happen
if the element which has an accesskey attribute is hidden using
display:none.
HTML4 says the following:
Pressing an access key assigned to an element gives focus to the
element. The action that
Ian Hickson schrieb:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
The problem is that you'd basically have to duplicate the entire form,
since login forms can be arbitrarily complex. If the bot has the
username and password, why not also give it the username field name,
password field
Ian Hickson wrote:
For instance, we've been working on a search engine that scan internet
sites that may require authentication. Configuring that login for each
site would be a maintenance nightmare.
Well for a piece of software of that scale, parsing the document using an
off-the-shelf HTML
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Stijn Peeters wrote:
...
It makes sense to clear these values when the field is focused, as the
user will probably want to insert a new
Julian Reschke schrieb:
Ian Hickson wrote:
For instance, we've been working on a search engine that scan internet
sites that may require authentication. Configuring that login for each
site would be a maintenance nightmare.
Well for a piece of software of that scale, parsing the document
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
Well for a piece of software of that scale, parsing the document using
an off-the-shelf HTML parser and finding the first matching form
element and then applying normal HTML semantics to get to the form
fields seems like a pretty small task
Pentasis wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
The primary use cases for these elements are for marking up publication
dates e.g. in blog entries, and for marking event dates in hCalendar
markup. Thus the DOM APIs are likely to be used as ways to generate
interactive
Ian Hickson wrote:
I wouldn't recommend running an HTTP parser in the kernel either. Anywhere
where you can safely run an HTTP parser you can run an HTML parser too.
Maybe, maybe not. I'll leave the answer to those who need to do it.
To do that, it would need to *capture* that information
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
This confuses me again ;-) Sorry. Are you saying that examples and
use-cases will be excluded from the spec?
I'm saying that examples of use cases will be included, and that the words
use cases will generally be avoided.
Like I stated before, I
On 11/25/2008 11:17 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Maybe, the standard behaviour (for both 'display:none' and
'visibility:hidden') could be just focusing (and changing visibility)
after pressing the access key (so the user notices what's happening
before activating any 'control'), then
Lachlan Hunt ha scritto:
Pentasis wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
The primary use cases for these elements are for marking up
publication
dates e.g. in blog entries, and for marking event dates in hCalendar
markup. Thus the DOM APIs are likely to be used as
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
I know, and agree with the basic reasons; however I think that deriving
an SGML version (i.e. by adding new entities and elements, as needed, to
an html 4 dtd) should not be very difficoult, and could be worth the
effort (i.e. to graceful degrade the
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
To do that, it would need to *capture* that information somewhere. I
was assuming the whole point in the exercise was to avoid having to
pop up an HTML based UI...
Well if you don't have the credentials, you can't really login anyway.
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
In other words, the normative section of the spec will be as generic as
possible, while a non-normative section will cover a bounch of use cases
and examples, without pretending to be exahustive with regard to all
possible use cases. Am
Olli Pettay wrote:
I think allowing hidden elements to be activated is useful for web apps,
especially because there isn't any API to add listeners for accesskey
activation.
Hmm …
Couldn't you style such elements visible with :focus and :active?
Does popular assistive technology report
- Original Message -
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
This confuses me again ;-) Sorry. Are you saying that examples and
use-cases will be excluded from the spec?
I'm saying that examples of use cases will be included, and that the words
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course that's possible, but, as you noticed too, only by
Ian Hickson ha scritto:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
In other words, the normative section of the spec will be as generic as
possible, while a non-normative section will cover a bounch of use cases
and examples, without pretending to be exahustive with regard to all
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote:
But the way it is described now still creates a difference in *possible*
markup between:
The battle of waterloo was fought on time datetime=1815-06-18Sunday
18 June 1815/time
and:
Julius Ceasar was assassinated on the ides of march in the year
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case - if you (and also Chris Double) are satisfied with the
estimates you're getting for file duration/length - I'll stop arguing
for it. It would be nice to hear some experimental evidence about how
well it's
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
I was hoping that the authentication scheme you're defining can be used
without parsing the HTML response.
A simple way to achieve it would be to restrict it to username/password
pairs, and to have the names of these form parameters live in the
On 11/26/2008 12:39 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Olli Pettay wrote:
Couldn't you style such elements visible with :focus and :active?
What you mean? How do you focus a display:none element?
Good point. You can't. Isn't that a problem in practice? i.e. When do
you want a control to have
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
On 11/25/2008 11:17 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Maybe, the standard behaviour (for both 'display:none' and
'visibility:hidden') could be just focusing (and changing visibility)
after pressing the access key (so the user notices what's happening
before
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:26:47 -, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-authentform-19990203
[...]
I don't really understand what problem the above solves that isn't solved
better by SSL.
I agree that if real security is desired, SSL is the only way to go.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Martin Atkins wrote:
It would be useful to be able to mark certain submit buttons as
non-validating.
I've added a novalidate= attribute for this case.
Thanks for the discussion of use cases and examples of actual sites, which
were useful in determining whether this was
I include below a number of e-mails sent on the topic of Geolocation and
possible things we should add to HTML5 around this. I haven't added
anything, because I the W3C's Geolocation group is already working on
providing an API for this. I encourage people who want to work on this
topic to
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Martin Atkins wrote:
Benjamin Joffe wrote:
type=address
Indicates that the input should represent an address, the user agent may aid
by displaying data from a GPS or use an online map etc.
I have a little more trouble with this idea, for a number of reasons:
*
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Kornel Lesinski wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:26:47 -, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-authentform-19990203
[...]
I don't really understand what problem the above solves that isn't solved
better by SSL.
I agree that if
(Note: feedback relating to drag-and-drop of files from the filesystem,
with possible uploading of content, isn't included in this e-mail. I am
waiting to see what happens with the Web Apps File Upload spec.)
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jon Barnett wrote:
On 4/30/07, Ian McKellar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Martin Atkins wrote:
Benjamin Joffe wrote:
Have the following possible values for the TYPE attribute been considered
for the INPUT element?
type=color
The user agent would display an appropriate colour picker and would send a
hexidecimal string represting that
The definition of Interactive Content states:
Certain elements in HTML have an activation behavior, which means the
user agent should allow the user to manually trigger them in some way,
for instance using keyboard or voice input (though not mouse clicks,
which are handled above).
It's not
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The definition of Interactive Content states:
Certain elements in HTML have an activation behavior, which means the
user agent should allow the user to manually trigger them in some way,
for instance using keyboard or voice input (though not mouse
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Since ID is case sensitive everywhere else, I don't see a reason to make
an exception from that rule here. That seems to unnecessarily complicate
implementation as well as introduce weird inconsistencies
Silvia Pfeiffer schrieb:
The duration is indeed jumping quite a bit between 8min and 12 min and
even at the end still has a gap of actual end time of 9m54s while the
estimate is still at 10m44s.
Actually that gap means the byte-accounting is still buggy. Hmmm...
Players like YouTube's player
64 matches
Mail list logo
