I tend to concur not just with the specific (borders around images in )
but with the broader principle of working hard to preserve simple HTML. It
is good to keep in mind that there are novices in the world for whom the
concepts of HTML, CSS, script, DOM, semantics, microformats. libraries, etc.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Doug Simpkinson wrote:
>
> If the headers are optional, is there a reason they can't be added to
> the spec in version 1? It's OK if the first implementations ignore it,
> but it seems that some implementations have a faster release cycle than
> IETF protocol spec updates, s
If the headers are optional, is there a reason they can't be added to
the spec in version 1? It's OK if the first implementations ignore
it, but it seems that some implementations have a faster release cycle
than IETF protocol spec updates, so the upside to having it in the
spec sooner is huge.
I
On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:41, Markus Ernst wrote:
> I apologize for the case this is a stupid suggestion: Could the spec say that
> the default for HTML5 is no border, but UAs are encouraged to render linked
> images in documents with pre-HTML5 or no doctypes with a border?
Taking your suggestion l
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Markus Ernst wrote:
Ashley Sheridan schrieb:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 01:56 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 2) I do not believe the proposed rule is a good default for
either > documents or applications. It lo
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:14, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
> > The majority of browsers render images within links as having a border
>
> Do you mean the majority of browser installed base (IE's installed base plus
> Firefox's)? Of the 5 top br
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> The handling of processing instructions in the XHTML syntax seems
> reasonably well-defined; but it feels a little off in the HTML syntax.
There's no such thing as processing instructions in text/html.
There was such a thing in HTML4, because o
On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:14, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> The majority of browsers render images within links as having a border
Do you mean the majority of browser installed base (IE's installed base plus
Firefox's)? Of the 5 top browsers 3 don't have a border and 2 have. Of the 4
top engines, 2 hav
The handling of processing instructions in the XHTML syntax seems
reasonably well-defined; but it feels a little off in the HTML syntax.
Briefly it seems that . Because processing
instructions can contain > and terminate only at the two character
sequence ?> this could cause PI processing to termin
Ashley Sheridan schrieb:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 01:56 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 2) I do not believe the proposed rule is a good default for either
> documents or applications. It looks ugly. I randomly checked 10 of
> the sites I b
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 01:56 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> > 2) I do not believe the proposed rule is a good default for either
> > documents or applications. It looks ugly. I randomly checked 10 of
> > the sites I browse most often
On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
2) I do not believe the proposed rule is a good default for either
documents or applications. It looks ugly. I randomly checked 10 of
the sites I browse most often and I could not find a single one that
explicitly added this rule for the
On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
I believe the rendering section should describe a default style
rule, present in Gecko and in Internet Explorer (and also in
Netscape 4.x and earlier, Mosaic, etc.), that gives borders to
images inside links. In Gecko, this is represented as:
13 matches
Mail list logo
