On 9/9/10, Rostislav Hristov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a way to define valid partial HTML fragments that can
> be included into other documents using a server-side language or
> injected using AJAX. The current specification doesn't have any major
> restrictions in this area but it alway
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>>>
>>> The current state of the specifications do not mention fieldset elements
>>> for the :enabled and :disabled pseudo-classes but fieldset c
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Andy Estes wrote:
> I recently implemented HTML5's IDL definition for in WebKit
> (https://webkit.org/b/49786) and noticed a few differences between how HTML5
> specs marquee and how IE implements it. I noticed the following two
> discrepancies:
>
> 1) For scrol
I recently implemented HTML5's IDL definition for in WebKit
(https://webkit.org/b/49786) and noticed a few differences between how HTML5
specs marquee and how IE implements it. I noticed the following two
discrepancies:
1) For scrollAmount, scrollDelay and loop, IE does not allow the content
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>>
>> The current state of the specifications do not mention fieldset elements
>> for the :enabled and :disabled pseudo-classes but fieldset can be
>> disabled so I guess it might be convenient to have
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, zhao Matt wrote:
>
> I know Mozilla and Microsoft have provided some ways (respectively, CSP, XSS
> filter) to mitigate or detect XSS attacks.
> so I wonder whether HTML5 will present an approach to fight this attacks?
"XSS" is a pretty broad range of attacks. HTML has a numbe
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
> The current state of the specifications do not mention fieldset elements
> for the :enabled and :disabled pseudo-classes but fieldset can be
> disabled so I guess it might be convenient to have these pseudo-classes
> applied to them.
>
> Opera app
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
> With HTML4 (at least before fieldset.disabled), form controls disabled
> IDL attribute was a simple way to set and get the disabled state because
> the disabled state and the disabled content attribute were exactly the
> same thing.
>
> Now, with
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > > If we can do all this that should turn it into a one-way dependency
>> > > with most definitions being completely self-contained.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure it's worth it in the case of the origin thing.
>>
>> So what happens when we define how
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Rostislav Hristov wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a way to define valid partial HTML fragments that can be
> included into other documents using a server-side language or injected
> using AJAX. The current specification doesn't have any major
> restrictions in this area but it al
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> Consider this testcase:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> try {
> var c = document.getElementById("c"),
> t = c.getContext("2d");
> t.moveTo(100, 100);
> t.lineTo(NaN, NaN);
> t.lineTo(50, 25);
> t.stroke();
> } ca
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
> In HTML fragment serialization algorithm, we skip elements with empty
> content model in step 2.2: [...]
>
> For consistency, I propose to skip children of source and track elements
> as well.
Oops. Added. Thanks.
> Also, the algorithm does not see
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
> It looks like the reset algorithm for input elements is considering all
> types except the . Shouldn't "empty the list of
> selected files" be added?
It looks like this has been fixed.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--..
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Christoph P�per wrote:
>
> I�m not sure, but I think it�s at your end that character encodings get
> garbled.
Yes, I am unfortunately using an encoding-impaired MUA.
> Ian Hickson:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Christoph P�per wrote:
> >>
> >> - Input two-digit year, transmit f
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:58:52 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > > 2) Is there any reason we cannot also use this "no browsing context"
> > > clause to define document.cookie rather than having a special ty
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Martin Janecke wrote:
>
> (1) There's the example of relative date phrases that refer to an absolute
> date. For example:
> Last year's temperature was above average.
What's the use case here? What problem is this solving that isn't solved
by just writing this?:
Last yea
On 12/7/10 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Per spec, currently document.open() replaces the current page rather than
allow navigation.
I believe there are cases where that would cause us to break compat.
Note that neither IE nor Gecko does a replace load there, last I checked.
I'm not sure how
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
> Maybe Choose one...
> should be allowed?
I considered that, but since disabled options don't get selected, that
wouldn't work without yet more special-casing.
> The spec allows Choose one... selected>Foo. Maybe it should require the label option to
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 8/24/10 6:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > So basically, translating this to specese:
> >
> > Document objects on which you call open() have an "override reload"
> > flag set and an initially empty source cache added.
> >
> > When you call d
On 07.12.2010 18:51, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Am 07.12.2010, 10:13 Uhr, schrieb Julian Reschke :
It would be great if those scripts could just get fixed.
Do you actually think that would HAPPEN? I think not. Better have people
get
rid of them entirely. Though that wouldn't happen either.
Am 07.12.2010, 10:13 Uhr, schrieb Julian Reschke :
It would be great if those scripts could just get fixed.
Do you actually think that would HAPPEN? I think not. Better have people
get
rid of them entirely. Though that wouldn't happen either.
I'm still all for such a property in . I perso
2010-12-01 21:43 EEST: Aryeh Gregor:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> It cannot, and should not. It's a user concern. If as a user I want all
>> data that you send me to be printed unencrypted and dropped out of my
>> office window for anyone to read, then I should be allow
On 06.08.2010 05:49, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
...
IMO there should be a standard metadata wrapper that should be around
virtually all files being passed around the Internet. Downloaders should
register the metadata to xattrs or somesuch and uploaders should collect
said metadata and rewrap it. T
On 02.08.2010 18:56, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
2010/8/2 Kornel Lesiński:
Downloads can be "forced" already with Content-Disposition: attachment. It's
just harder to do, and unfortunately that doesn't stop webmasters from trying. Popular
PHP snippets for forcing download are among the most disgusti
Hi All,
Last week I put together a small javascript library titled "cache.js", which is
basically localStorage—only, with cache expiry.
https://github.com/benschwarz/cache.js
This somewhat mimics the cache expiry patterns seen elsewhere on the web,
especially with key/value stores such as
25 matches
Mail list logo
