In http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-March/025549.html
with a subject of Element-related feedback, Ian Hixie quoted me and
asked:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Jim Jewett wrote:
Evil Lawyer: So, when did you stop beating your wife?
Defendant: Never!
Evil Lawyer
Back around Oct 15, Ian summarized his objections to letting cite
refer to the primary source of the information, rather than being an
oddly named synoymy for i class=title.
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jim Jewett wrote:
I hate to be so repetitive, but why is that beneficial? What is the
semantic
Just to reiterate, Opera10 treats all unknown elements as container
(flow) elements.
Most desktop Opera installations (only in the US?) were put there by
an end user, and offer to update themselves. Is Opera 10 likely to
still be common by the time the spec actually exits last call?
-jJ
In
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/023192.html
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
The unlocking around plugin calls is a problem, but it seems to me that any
given library function is much more likely start with a plugin-based
implementation and eventually switch to a
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
entry (which has already been proposed) might more logically suit the
bill for standalone articles (in a blog or whatever) as well as
blog/forum comments. And since it's part of the Atom spec., there's some
precedent for defining its use.
Renaming
Smylers wrote:
I wrote:
I think that gets at the root of the problem with cite. Most people
don't read the spec, or even know where to find it. cite isn't common
enough to just copy by example, and it turns out to be ambiguous as
the name of an element or attribute.
But why would somebody
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ uses status.js and
status.css to create a popup showing status.
It shows status of the section (such as Awaiting implementation
feedback or Controversial Working Draft), the number of tests, the
number of demos, implementation status for each of
.
The original purpose of a citation was so that readers could, if they
wished, go back to the original. That is much easier when the
original is only a click away, and so even more important.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Jim Jewett wrote:
... If you have to look it up, then only careful people will
use
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
What would then be the recommended way to provide fallback content
for a video like the following?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Ara_chloroptera.ogg
That's a 6-second video of a Red-and-green Macaw moving along a
tree branch, with the only
In
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/023005.html,
Ian quoted Erik Vorhes as writing:
Put another way, if you had no prior knowledge of the current HTML5
definition of cite (and perhaps any other specification's definition
of the element), what would seem to be
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
Drew Wilson wrote:
Per section 4.8.3 of the SharedWorkers spec,
if a page loads a shared worker with a url and
name, it is illegal for any other page under the
same origin to load a worker with the same name
The idea here is
Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a url parameter and a name
parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using the
same script resource without having to load separate resources from the
server.
[ request that name be scoped to the URL, rather than the entire
Orthodoxy has it that there is no use case for marking up an ancient date
or fuzzy date like June 2009 using time. I disagree, and this has
been discussed many times before. Do you have any concrete use cases or
examples of how marking these up using time would be necessary?
Whether or not it
Ian Hickson wrote:
| video does support fallback, so in practice you can just use Theora and
| H.264 and cover all bases.
Could you replace the codec section with at least an informative note
to this effect? Something like,
As of 2009, there is no single efficient codec which works on all
In the ~0.1% of images where
longdesc= is used, it's misused literally over 99% of the time:
http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery
Responding for the archive; that blog bost keeps getting cited, but it
isn't up to Mark's usual standards. longdesc is not a success story,
but neither is
15 matches
Mail list logo
