Hi, Kang-Hao.
On 2011/02/28 21:31, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
Hello Makoto,
(Cc+ public-webapps)
(11/02/25 15:16), Makoto Kato wrote:
Hi,
This is simple sample. This behavior is different on all web browsers
when input element has composition/preedit string for IME.
A relevant question
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
FWIW, chromium is planning on experimenting with disallowing modal dialogs
during the beforeunload/unload events.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=68780
That sounds fairly unpleasant for users of pages
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
But well, the signature looks like there is only one parameter
No. If there were only one parameter, the signature would say |in any
args|. It actually says |in any... args| which means any number of
arguments. See
On 3/1/11, Narendra Sisodiya naren...@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
We can record mouse and keyboard activity in xml. There are many events
which are resolution independent.
for example mouse clicks, button press events . Now suppose you are dealing
with some animation or game or just a
For comment 3, simply reference the use cases for Microsoft's AfxMsgBox,
::MessageBox and its derivatives. The time out is a well-received idea.
As to comment 2, I agree that the various traps put in place are
exceptionally annoying. An alternative would be a forced closing via the
browser
2011-03-01 11:13 EEST: Robert O'Callahan:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
FWIW, chromium is planning on experimenting with disallowing modal dialogs
during the beforeunload/unload events.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=68780
That
On 28 Feb 2011, at 17:52, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Can't we extend the existing window.status?
It's supported by some older UAs (and ignored by others, because of
confusing UI), but if the UI distinguishes page messages from browser
and system messages, it's usable (aside from a historical
On 03/01/2011 04:50 PM, Ben Rimmington wrote:
However, some mobile platforms have a local notification service [3]
[4] [5] [6]. A new window.notify() function might be useful, so that
a background card/tab/window can display a message to the user.
See [1] for the current state-of-play in
On 3/1/11, Ben Rimmington benrimming...@me.com wrote:
On 28 Feb 2011, at 17:52, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Can't we extend the existing window.status?
It's supported by some older UAs (and ignored by others, because of
confusing UI), but if the UI distinguishes page messages from browser
and
On 1 Mar 2011, at 15:58, James Graham wrote:
On 03/01/2011 04:50 PM, Ben Rimmington wrote:
However, some mobile platforms have a local notification service [3]
[4] [5] [6]. A new window.notify() function might be useful, so that
a background card/tab/window can display a message to the
[resending reply, sorry again with problems]
My idea of wrapper or content was to identify actual content from the rest
of the window space. Like headerwrapperactual content centered at
960px/wrapper/header
Thanks, I hope i can still contribute to the list, even if my thoughts seem
odd.
Two or three weeks ago I began writing a specification for
execCommand() and related functions. I don't have anything
implementable yet -- it's very incomplete and there are known issues
with the existing stuff. But I thought I'd post it for any early
review comments on the direction I'm taking,
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
FWIW, chromium is planning on experimenting with disallowing modal dialogs
during the beforeunload/unload events.
According to the spec:
The body element represents the body of a document (as opposed to the
document’s metadata).
I think definition is a bit ambiguous.
We may think in giving it a more explicit meaning, and freeing it for
semantic availability (just an example):
!DOCTYPE html
html
head
On 3/1/11 4:37 AM, Alexandre Morgaut wrote:
No. If there were only one parameter, the signature would say |in any
args|. It actually says |in any... args| which means any number of
arguments. See http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#dfn-variadic-operation
Thanks for highlighting that, I see it more
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:54 AM, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
According to the spec:
The body element represents the body of a document (as opposed to the
document’s metadata).
I think definition is a bit ambiguous.
We may think in giving it a more explicit meaning, and freeing it for
The real issue is with change, never is too late.
Many of the new elements in html5 are for semantic purposes. Being now a
header and a footer, there is only one left thing that's pretty obvious.
I am not proposing the body tag for disappear, but allow it for a new
implementation. And perhaps in
On 03/01/2011 09:09 PM, ext usuario wrote:
I am not proposing the body tag for disappear, but allow it for a new
implementation. And perhaps in say 10 years, discontinue it as document
start element, when the change be widely spread.
The reason? a better semantics advantages.
That is a bit
On 3/1/11 1:54 PM, usuario wrote:
According to the spec:
The body element represents the body of a document (as opposed to the
document’s metadata).
I think definition is a bit ambiguous.
Why not propose a better definition then?
Why not propose a better definition then?
Because than wouldn't likely solve the semantic issue (if we can call it an
issue).
I am not an html expert, it is even hard to me figure even what i propose.
If a tell it, is because belive on it. But if you like the idea, i can try
make it more
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:09 PM, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
The real issue is with change, never is too late.
Many of the new elements in html5 are for semantic purposes. Being now a
header and a footer, there is only one left thing that's pretty obvious.
I am not proposing the body tag
On 3/1/11, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
[resending reply, sorry again with problems]
My idea of wrapper or content was to identify actual content from the rest
of the window space. Like headerwrapperactual content centered at
960px/wrapper/header
That seems like a presentational problem,
On 3/1/11, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not propose a better definition then?
Because than wouldn't likely solve the semantic issue (if we can call it an
issue).
I am not an html expert, it is even hard to me figure even what i propose.
If a tell it, is because belive on it. But if
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 12:32 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:09 PM, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
The real issue is with change, never is too late.
Many of the new elements in html5 are for semantic purposes. Being now a
header and a footer, there is only one left
Let me put it in others words. Following the last example.
Here is the way i see it,
Everything inside a word document IS CONTENT (not body). In that document we
may have or not a header, or a footer, but we always should have a body,
in this word document, for convenience purposes text by
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:12 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
I have untrusted markup from a third party which I would like to
safely insert into my page, knowing that the rest of my page is safe
from whatever the untrusted markup is doing. Also, the untrusted
markup may be doing expensive
Am 28.02.2011 19:56 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
I believe you're arguing that the wrapper semantic, being similarly
ubiquitous, thus needs its own new element as well. What you're
missing is that the wrapper semantic is precisely whatdiv already
expresses.
I do understand usuario's wrapper
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 21:59 +, usuario wrote:
Let me put it in others words. Following the last example.
Here is the way i see it,
Everything inside a word document IS CONTENT (not body). In that document we
may have or not a header, or a footer, but we always should have a body,
in
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Brett Zamir wrote:
I'd like to propose reserving two protocols for use with
navigator.registerProtocolHandler: urn and xri (or possibly xriNN
where NN is a version number).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Resource_Identifier for info
on XRI (basically
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Charles Pritchard wrote, in part (as, in the
interests of making progress, I have not cited or responded to sections of
the e-mail that did not include actionable feedback):
On 11/27/2010 2:50 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Charles Pritchard wrote:
I
On 3/1/11, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me put it in others words. Following the last example.
Here is the way i see it,
Everything inside a word document IS CONTENT (not body). In that document we
may have or not a header, or a footer, but we always should have a body,
in this word
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 28.02.2011 19:56 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
I believe you're arguing that the wrapper semantic, being similarly
ubiquitous, thus needs its own new element as well. What you're
missing is that the wrapper semantic is
Am 01.03.2011 23:50 schrieb Jordan Dobson:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Markus Ernstderer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 28.02.2011 19:56 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
I believe you're arguing that the wrapper semantic, being similarly
ubiquitous, thus needs its own new element as well. What you're
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:27:23 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
An update since this topic was discussed on this list before:
I updated the vendor-specific syntax a while back to be
x-vendor-foo= for content attributes, and .vendorFoo
I neither write nor speak English natively, but I believe that the
body element has to
be preserved all but as it is, if only for compatibility. Instead, you
should propose
putting the main content inside another element inside the body element,
say
content.
I agree, body must remain for
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:59 AM, usuario soyh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me put it in others words. Following the last example.
Here is the way i see it,
Everything inside a word document IS CONTENT (not body). In that document we
may have or not a header, or a footer, but we always should have a
You are too much married to the traditional notion of the body of a
document as known from paper. The meaning of body is here more akin
to the meaning of the body content of an (e)mail. Everything that's
the main content of a Web page is body. It may not be the most
appropriate word for the
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Narendra Sisodiya
naren...@narendrasisodiya.com wrote:
We can record mouse and keyboard activity in xml. There are many events
which are resolution independent.
for example mouse clicks, button press events . Now suppose you are dealing
with some animation or
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Andrea Canciani wrote:
What will be the current point after an arc with endAngle-startAngle
2pi?
The specification seems to say that the end point is defined to be the
point at endAngle, but the path is required to be exactly a circle.
The path is a circle but the
On 3/1/11 5:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I am still faced with the fact that there is no way to clear the HTTP
authentication credentials cache.
To some extent that's up to the browser. It logs you in, it can offer the
ability to log you out.
For what it's worth, Firefox even has UI for
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Well we can't remove support for them from browsers, since millions of
pages use them. Conformance checkers can't really complain about usage of
those APIs, since they can't easily check JavaScript runtime compliance.
So what
It just seems to me that there are so many tags being added, why keep adding
and adding? Down the line, it's gonna create nothing but abiguity in documents
and mass confusion (especially in terms of rendering) as a result. I think that
adding a content tag as children for header and footer or
Aryeh! You have made an ad-hominem attack: shame on you! I mention the
Microsoft use cases only to save space. There are similar cases in the
Linux and Macintosh realms. Judge an idea by its merits, not by its
source (even if that source is as disreputable as I certainly am).
You are correct
Great that this is getting attention spec-wise!
First, could it be that the link you posted is broken (I get 404 - No such
project. when clicking on it)?
Also, reposting my initial comment I sent you, as you requested: In your
draft you write:
I'm not sure if my priorities in writing the
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Great to see some spec'ing work here. Some issues with your document:
- Styling a Range doesn't support styleWithCSS=false
- Ignores possibility of JavaScript modifying DOM while your algorithm
is running - This
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.comwrote:
What exactly do you mean by an automated slideshow? How would this
feature help with that?
automated slideshow = slideshow where user need not to do next/forward etc,
every slide will be having timings and Audio
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Makoto Kato m_k...@ga2.so-net.ne.jp wrote:
On Safari 5, even if textbox has IME composition string, text into textbox
can be replaced by DOM/script. But other browser's behaviors are different,
and this is no specification when textbox has composition string.
On 3/1/2011 2:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Charles Pritchard wrote, in part (as, in the
interests of making progress, I have not cited or responded to sections of
the e-mail that did not include actionable feedback):
On 11/27/2010 2:50 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov
48 matches
Mail list logo
