-Original Message-
>From: Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2008 5:39 AM
>
>On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:26:40 +0200, Ernest Cline
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The element can already do this and it would be backwards
>>>
-Original Message-
>From: Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 31, 2008 5:02 AM
>To: Ernest Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, WhatWG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposal for a link attribute to replace
>
>On Sat, 31 May 2008 04:
Having looked at the discussion thus has generated, I have a counterproposal to
make.
First of all, given that full support for hyperlinks requires support for seven
attributes (href, target, ping, rel, media, hreflang, & type), I can fully
understand web developers not wanting to make it somet
-Original Message-
>From: Mike Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 15, 2008 8:02 AM
>To: 'WHATWG' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog
>
>Yes, I also quite like the analogy with dl/ul/ol. But it may
>be confusing when using dt and dd as child elements (
-Original Message-
>From: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 13, 2008 8:08 PM
>
>Unless we get more evidence that the confusion with dialog boxes is a real
>blocker to adoption, I'm going to assume that is our best option.
Is there any reasonable chance an element for a dialog
-Original Message-
>From: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 13, 2008 7:20 PM
>To: Ernest Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Paweł Stradomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog
>
>
-Original Message-
>From: Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 13, 2008 6:09 PM
>To: Paweł Stradomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
>Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5
>
>On Tue, 13 May 2008, Paweł Stradomski wrote:
>> W liście Ian Hickson z dnia wtorek 13 m
On further reflection, I'll concede that the style attribute is probably better
suited to deciding what to do with the icon once it is fetched. Using it as
metadata to decide what is fetched is problematic if multiple sizes are to be
allowed to be specified in a single link element. However I
-Original Message-
>From: Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 5, 2008 5:27 AM
>
>On Sun, 04 May 2008 02:38:03 +0200, Ernest Cline
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps, but it means adding attributes to elements that will
>> onl
-Original Message-
>From: Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 3, 2008 2:33 PM
>
>On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:13 AM, fantasai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> By contrast, I do not know of any actual need to determine the aspect
>>> ratio of an SVG icon
-Original Message-
>From: Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 1, 2008 9:34 PM
>To: Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [whatwg]
>
>
>On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> I would
-Original Message-
>From: Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: May 1, 2008 3:02 AM
>
>Ernest Cline writes:
>
>> > ... proposal to add "height" and "width" attributes to
>> > specifically for the case of rel=icon, so that authors
best).
>
>Opinions?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why wouldn't:
serve to mark width and height adequately?
It's even perfectly fine HTML 4 syntax.
Ernest Cline
parser algorithm, since it has only 1 digit.
Ernest Cline
-Original Message-
>From: WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Can the standard state that datetime strings support ISO 8601:2004 and leave
>it at that? (just a thought)
Considering the considerable number of formats that ISO 8601:2004 encompasses,
I don't think that would be a good idea
-Original Message-
>From: Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>The historic astronomy case seems awfully narrow to justify making
>native date widgets deal with BCE dates.
Native date widgets already need to deal with BCE dates at the DOM level as they
are well within the range of a DO
-Original Message-
>From: Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Ernest Cline wrote:
>> From a practical viewpoint, being able to specify dates before
>> January 1, 1 BC (Gregorian) would allow for historical dates not
>> currently available to be
The range of valid datetime strings is a subset of those specified by ISO 8601.
Most of the unused formats have been rejected on the grounds of simplicity of
parsing, but a format (I think added in ISO 8601:2004, but it may have been
earlier) offers a gain in utility that would not be unduly co
18 matches
Mail list logo
