On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Mike Wilson wrote:
I'm impressed with the level of detail that you strive for in
documenting real-world HTML :-)
It more or less is forced upon us if we want the spec to fulfill the role
of a document that accurately depicts how to write a user agent (be it a
browser,
On Jan 18, 2009, at 02:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi
wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote:
Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes
already
existing in HTML5, and adding a few more.
Also, RDFa
On 17/1/09 23:30, L. David Baron wrote:
On Saturday 2009-01-17 22:25 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The story of RDF is very different. Of the top four engines, only Gecko
has RDF functionality. It was implemented at a time when RDF was a young
W3C REC and stuff that were W3C RECs were implemented
On 18/1/09 00:24, Henri Sivonen wrote:
No. However, most of the time, when people publish HTML, they do it to
elicit browser behavior when a user loads the HTML document in a browser.
Most users of the Web barely know what a browser is, let alone HTML.
They're just putting information
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/1/09 00:24, Henri Sivonen wrote:
No. However, most of the time, when people publish HTML, they do it to
elicit browser behavior when a user loads the HTML document in a
browser.
Most users of the Web barely know what a browser is, let
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Mike Wilson wrote:
So I wonder what is your process
for determining if a quirk should be included in HTML5 or not?
It basically boils down to did Web browser vendors find that if they
didn't implement it, enough people complained to justify
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
But back to expectations. I've seen references elsewhere to Ian being
booked through the end of this quarter. I may have misheard, but in any
case, my point is the same: if this is awaiting something from Ian, it
will be prioritized
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of
the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a
comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web post, which caused the
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one
of the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a
comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
And regardless of the fact that I jumped to conclusions about WhatWG
membership, I do not believe I was inaccurate with the earlier part of
this email. Sam started a new thread in the discussion about the
On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will
never be either a workaround or compromise?
Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML
side of RDFa not to use attribute whose qualified name has a
On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will
never be either a workaround or compromise?
Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML side
of RDFa not to use
Mike Wilson wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Mike Wilson wrote:
So I wonder what is your process
for determining if a quirk should be included in HTML5 or not?
It basically boils down to did Web browser vendors find that if they
didn't implement it, enough people complained to
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never
be either a workaround or compromise?
Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the
On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will
never be either a workaround or compromise?
Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that
On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will
never be either a workaround or compromise?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Garrett Smith wrote:
If I understand this correctly, given a FORM with an INPUT named 'b', if
I change the name of that INPUT to 'a', then form.b should return the
element with name=a.
That isn't how it
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
a lot of interesting stuff
Thanks for all the information, it sounds good and reasonable.
Well done!
The idea is to make it so that browsers don't feel forced to
add _any_ non-standard behavior (other than experimental
innovations using vendor-prefixed names and
Mike Wilson wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There will not be, at least in Opera, Firefox or Safari, new
modes added beyond the existing no quirks, limited quirks and
quirks modes.
Do you reckon all, or only some of, these modes will implement the
HTML5 spec? (and differ only in css/rendering)
On 18/1/09 21:04, Shelley Powers wrote:
Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper,
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Note that since this isn't a core DOM behavior, but rather an artifact
of the JS-to-DOM glue, in this case the behavior will depend on whether
you've accessed the control by name on the form in the past; if the
first such access is after the name change in Gecko, the
Mike Wilson wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Garrett Smith wrote:
If I understand this correctly, given a FORM with an INPUT
named 'b', if I change the name of that INPUT to 'a', then
form.b should return the element with name=a.
snip
What is the reason for introducing the
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the
WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add
Is there a need for a tag in HTML5 to specify extracted content
semantically, such as the first few paragraphs of a blog post. The
extract tag could optionally contain a href attribute to the full
version of the content.
Just a quick idea, and I wanted some community thought on it.
Am Sonntag, den 18.01.2009, 21:30 + schrieb Eduard Pascual:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/01/xml-sunday shows the commentor
Jamie Rumbelow wrote:
Is there a need for a tag in HTML5 to specify extracted content
semantically, such as the first few paragraphs of a blog post. The
extract tag could optionally contain a href attribute to the full
version of the content.
This is a clear example of presenting a solution
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Jamie Rumbelow ja...@jamierumbelow.net wrote:
Is there a need for a tag in HTML5 to specify extracted content
semantically, such as the first few paragraphs of a blog post. The extract
tag could optionally contain a href attribute to the full version of the
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Mike Wilson wrote:
Now I am just being curious ;-) but how on earth do you find all quirks
(and if they have been specially dealt with) - is it up to reports on
the mailing list or are you reading source code? :-)
Lachlan answered most of your questions, but I just
Dan Brickley wrote:
... I guess the fact that @property is supposed to be CURIE-only
isn't a
problem with parsers since this can be understood as a CURIE with
no (or
empty) substitution token.
Actually, most RDFa parsers will break if full URIs are used in RDFa
attributes: in RDFa all
Toby A Inkster wrote:
So RDFa, as it is currently defined, does need a CURIE binding
mechanism. XML namespaces are used for XHTML+RDFa 1.0, but given that
namespaces don't work in HTML, an alternative mechanism for defining
them is expected, and for consistency would probably be allowed in
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
The more use cases there are, the better informed the results will be.
The point isn't to provide use cases. The point is to highlight a
serious problem with this working group--there is a mindset of what the
future of HTML will look like, and
31 matches
Mail list logo
