On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > On 7/19/11 12:30 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
> >>
> >> I think one could argue for either case. Personally, I think it's
> >> advantageous to include the scoping element (i.e., use ":
Hi Marc,
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Marc 'Tafouk' wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I've been following the latest developments on the WebVTT specification and
> am making an attempt to write an out-of-browser parser, using Anna
> Cavender's proposed patches to WebKit.
Cool! Is this a new video
On 7/19/11 9:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Would other browser vendors be willing to change to only look at in?
Gecko used to implement that back when the spec said it.
This caused site compat issues. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593807 (United checkin
outside the US being
IE7 and up, in both quirks and non-quirks modes, ignores in
the of a page. This is intended to protect against a situation
where a whitelist-based content filter disallows all scripts but does not
disallow , and the page contains a relative URL in a
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Richard Summers wrote:
> >>
> >> I was wondering, is there any plan to implement a element
> >> within the HTML5 spec? I�m suggesting this as a complimentary element
> >> to
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 at 09:32 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
> I wanted to mention that Ronny's page at
> http://leanbackplayer.com/other/webvtt.html has had some updates
> recently and has now settled, with demos at
> http://leanbackplayer.com/test/webvtt.html .
>
> Note that where his implementatio
> I think this requirement doesn't really help us enforce endpoints
> initiate/accept WebSocket with the same configuration. Because
>
> - non-browser UAs are free to be implemented without deflate-stream
> - server developers would see/care only the wire protocol spec
Given the number of browser
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Justin Lebar wrote:
>
> The document base URL is used when fetching resources.
>
> Right now, if a page doesn't have a element, the document base
> URL is set to the document's address. (I'm going to call this the
> "document's original address".) The document's original
On Jul 19, 2011, at 19:12 , Darin Adler wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Thomas Maas wrote:
>
>> instead of checking for an empty string *and* focus the user agent should
>> just check for an empty string.
>
> I think that for some user agents, whether the placeholder text is shown when
>
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 01:42 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > I do not know the original use case but I can think of a few: -on
> > > mobile devices which have a find dialog but no user interface to
> > > access it, make the find dialog appear
> >
> > Are the
18.07.2011, в 9:35, Glenn Maynard написал(а):
> > A different scenario which I don't think has been discussed in this thread
> > is bypassing a hosting service security settings. Consider a highly
> > reputable hosting that doesn't let you upload executable files (or maybe
> > just scans those
On Jul 19, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Thomas Maas wrote:
> instead of checking for an empty string *and* focus the user agent should
> just check for an empty string.
I think that for some user agents, whether the placeholder text is shown when
the field is focused should depend on platform behavior.
F
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:01:37 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
As for the solution, are you suggesting that .itemValue return a special
object which is like HTMLElement in all regards except for how it
toString()s?
Yes.
Currently, it's spe
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 7/19/11 12:30 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
>>
>> I think one could argue for either case. Personally, I think it's
>> advantageous to include the scoping element (i.e., use ":scope foo .bar,
>> foo:scope .bar"), in order to be able to do styl
On 7/19/11 12:30 AM, Roland Steiner wrote:
I think one could argue for either case. Personally, I think it's
advantageous to include the scoping element (i.e., use ":scope foo .bar,
foo:scope .bar"), in order to be able to do style the scoping element
itself rather than its children individually,
Hi,
Use of deflate-stream is now mandatory in API spec. I think this kind of
requirement is useless. How about leave it up to implementors' decision?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12917
Adrian first brought this up on bugzilla for discussion. I'd like to ask
opinions from whatwg.
Agreed,
instead of checking for an empty string *and* focus the user agent should just
check for an empty string.
current spec:
when the element's value is the empty string and the control is not focused
(e.g. by displaying it inside a blank unfocused control)
proposed spec:
when the element's
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-input-element-attributes.html#the-placeholder-attribute
User agents should present this hint to the user, after having stripped
line breaks from it,
when the element's value is the empty string and the control is not
focused (e.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 22:48, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:35, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> I like the pattern id/for pattern of forms. We could imagine
>>
>>
>> Sir John Typo
>> has written plenty of a wonderful thing
>> in Amazing title very similar to those in
>> Susan Spellchec
On 2011-07-14 00:39, Ian Hickson wrote:
In response to off-list feedback, I've renamed StreamTrack to
MediaStreamTrack to be clearer about its relationship to the other
interfaces.
Perhaps now that there is no longer any relation to tracks on the media
elements we could also change Track to so
20 matches
Mail list logo
