On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:49:39 +0200, Jens O. Meiert j...@meiert.com wrote:
This document doesn't have versions (anymore). Is the length of that
section
a problem?
Yes. It’s probably a lesser important part of the document but it
appears to take up about half of the space (or blows the
On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:50:03 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi
wrote:
I don't think this is of particular importance.
If it isn't, why not use the correct spelling?
Mostly to be consistent with HTML5.
When referring to specifications, it is usually a good idea to use their
own
(13/05/07 17:00), Simon Pieters wrote:
Since WHATWG does not use a proper name for its version (the title is
just HTML), I think the only way to refer to it properly is to
prefix it with WHATWG. This would lead to the title
Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01
Here HTML5 is
On Tue, 07 May 2013 11:52:46 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kangh...@oupeng.com wrote:
Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01
Here HTML5 is supposed to refer to W3C HTML5 and W3C HTML5.1?
Seems so. Is there a concern here?
Well, HTML5 could refer to just HTML5...
How about I
Simon,
I think it would be good to consider the target audiences, of which
there are probably many:
You have the audience who is worried that HTML5 is some grand
departure from the HTML 4.01 they (think they) know and love. For
them, you'll want to describe what exactly has been removed and why,
I realize this is an old thread, so apologies if this has already been
resolved. The discussion that originally followed seemed to have
gotten off track, so I wanted to try to clarify things.
First off, there are two factors to consider:
(1) Whether to download the file or display it.
(2) What
* James Burke wrote:
I just joined the mailing list, so I apologize for not continuing the
existing thread started here:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-April/039422.html
Disclaimer: I submitted the Mozilla Bugzilla ticket for some kind of
capability in this area.
I understand the amount of space it takes. I still don't understand what the
problem is. Is it that people look at the scrollbar and think oh wow this
document is too long, I'm not gonna bother reading it at all.? Or something
else?
That is one scenario which could have an effect on how many
On 5/7/13 5:54 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:
A @download attribute with a value would override both factors, like so:
(1) Download it.
(2) A.txt
Why?
You say this as if it were obvious, but it's not obvious to me at all...
What's the reasoning that makes this the desirable behavior?
I
