Hi Mat,
Thanks for the response.
On 13/09/11 18:41, m...@matcarey.co.uk wrote:
> Hi Mike, I've got some concerns with that:
>
>> HTML5 does not provide a means of submitting form content that is
>> otherwise rendered as normal text
>
> I believe this is the job of CSS rather than HTML - I wou
This looks really interesting. Do you think this conformance suite is
in a good stage for browser vendors to integrate it in their test
suites? I'm interested in integrating this into Mozilla's test suite to
make sure that we don't regress anything covered by these tests without
realizing it.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Could you please supply an example where the apply/reapply split leads
> to cleaner or otherwise better code than using a boolean argument?
Boolean arguments are evil and should be avoided wherever possible.
It's impossible to figure out fro
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:21:48 -0400, Michael A. Puls II
wrote:
Encoding the data (markup for example) for the data URI is simple. Just
use encodeURIComponent(markup) (on a UTF-8 page) in JS on the data. You
still hand-author the markup. You just paste the markup into a textarea
and have s
Hi Ian,
given the feedback in this thread it seems to me that limiting selector
matching within to the scope of the parent element -
including, but not exceeding it - would be a preferred default behavior.
With the addition that the presence of :scope or :root in a selector allows
the matching to
Hi Mike, I've got some concerns with that:
> HTML5 does not provide a means of submitting form content that is
> otherwise rendered as normal text
I believe this is the job of CSS rather than HTML - I would say that anything
due to be submitted to the server is semantically an even if it's styl
2011-09-11 00:15 EEST: Daniel Holbert:
> Browsers handle the "#" character in data URIs very differently, and the
> arguably "correct" behavior is probably not what authors actually want
> in many cases.
>
> This could be more intuitive/do-what-I-mean if we restricted the cases
> under which "#" i
