Re: [whatwg] Focus, html vs body and the activeElement property

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Hans S. Tømmerholt wrote: > > I'm reading this part: > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#focus > > The intro states: > "When an element is focused, key events received by the document must be > targeted at that element. There is always an element focused; in

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > Maybe so-called "invalid" HTML attributes are not the only solution, but in > my opinion it is a simple way to embed metadata within any element. > > Imagine that such markup is then passed to a web application through XHR. In > that case

Re: [whatwg] Bug in HTML 5 validator?

Samuel Santos , 2008-12-17 23:19 +: > I get this error message from the HTML 5 validator at http://validator.nu/: > >*Error*: Attribute sizes not allowed on element > linkat this > point. You can raise validator.nu bugs here: ht

[whatwg] Media elements delaying the load event.

Currently HTML5 does not require media elements to delay the load event in any way. We certainly don't want to delay the load event until the entire resource has finished loading (as we do for images), but I think it would make sense to delay the load event until media elements that are loading hav

Re: [whatwg] Modal dialogs in HTML5

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, João Eiras wrote: > > While I myself don't find any decent use case for positioning the > window, I think sizing the popup is a common and useful use case,besides > controlling other aspected already covered by window.open(). Because the > behavior for the features argument

[whatwg] Yet another issue with the ImageData API

So while playing around with some image filtering code using the Canvas ImageData APIs I realised that the APIs as currently designed make it difficult to do certain kinds of operation. The specific issue is that there is no direct mechanism to get a working/scratch ImageData object of the

[whatwg] Bug in HTML 5 validator?

I get this error message from the HTML 5 validator at http://validator.nu/: 1. *Error*: Attribute sizes not allowed on element linkat this point. From line 9, column 5; to line 9, column 62 itle>↩

Re: [whatwg] Modal dialogs in HTML5

On , Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Joao Eiras wrote: What happened to the 3rd parameter (sFeatures) ? http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms536759.aspx This parameter is needed to specific the window features (size, position, ...). I couldn't find any features that I could

[whatwg] DOMStringMap named properties

Continuing a conversation from IRC (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081217#l-187): Cameron McCormack: > Hixie, i think it would be better if DOMStringMap still > had operations annotated with [NameGetter] etc., and then for me to > introduce something in Web IDL to indicate

Re: [whatwg] Modal dialogs in HTML5

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Jo�o Eiras wrote: > > What happened to the 3rd parameter (sFeatures) ? > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms536759.aspx > This parameter is needed to specific the window features (size, position, > ...). I couldn't find any features that I could justify specifying, so

[whatwg] Phrasing semantics feedback omnibus

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Ozob the Great wrote: > > I am concerned about the existence of HTML5's . This was brought to > my attention during a technical debate on Wikipedia which amounted to: > Where is use of appropriate? The problem is that while can > be used to distinguish variables from non-v

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > I don't write browser code, honestly, but I think that XML parser don't > need to check for attribute types (they're all quoted strings), XML parsers still have to check for quotes (" vs '), which takes no less time than HTML's checking for quot

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

2008/12/17 Ian Hickson > > XML is neither more performant nor stricter than XML. The main differences > are that XML has less user-friendly error recovery and supports arbitrary > namespaces. Authors have clearly indicated that this is not compelling. > Deprecating HTML thus seems like vain effort

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > I thought later on this topic and i arrived to conclusion that we cannot > forbid or delete completely the HTML serialization, but there are no > real use cases for this in server generated web pages. Even in case of > user-generated content an

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

2008/12/16 Ian Hickson > > I tried following this thread but I can't find what I would need to change > in the spec to address the feedback so far. If this feedback relates to > requests for the spec, please elaborate on exactly what it is that should change -- thanks! I thought later on this t