Hi Giovanni,
I haven't read your entire comment, but with your point eight will
break backwards compatibility. As far as I know is HTML5 supposed to
combine old and new. The problem with interfaces is that you can not
simply change them. That's just a fact we have to deal with.
jorgen
On
I understand the conceptual problem with this, but why don't you just
use a large number? If the video is 1 sec, with a playcount set to
999 it will keep running at least three months; longer than any
webpage is in memory.
jorgen
On Sep 27, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
I've been following this discussion for a while and I agree a new
'_tab' target is not necessary. To my mind _blank implies a new
browser canvas. There are two implementations for creating a new
canvas these days; a new window, or a new tab. The key question is:
what does _blank mean? Does
On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:46:15 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:53:09 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.
Thanks. :)
I'm sad there aren
hi,
If you have something to say, just reply on some of the e-mails about
the topics you are interested on. You do not have to register or join
topics explicitly. ;)
cheers
On Feb 19, 2007, at 2:29 PM, yazid erman wrote:
hi
i would like to join your list in the following subjects:
1. R
On Feb 11, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
To take this from a discussion last month on atom-syntax:
What is meant to happen if you set innerHTML of a where the
set value has both a and an ?
first of all the element can only be inserted in HTML
documents. The spec states
On Feb 10, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Jens Brueckmann wrote:
To my mind a flag denotes a single point somewhere in the document
and does not denote a range. So I associate it with the real-world
analogy of a flag placed somewhere in the document. So I am not an
advocate of
I see what you mean.
I am
On Feb 10, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Jens Brueckmann wrote:
a reference for the user, which is exactly what this element is
for. It
doesn't matter whether the user looks at it immediately, in 5
minutes,
tomorrow, or in the distant future; it's there for when the user
needs it.
It comes to my mi
oncluding: to my mind a reference marker implies importance; we only
highlight what is important for some use by some user. So, to blow
the flame a little more, why not using a strong element with
className 'highlight'?
Jorgen Horstink
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
On Feb 10, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:30:10 +0100, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not arguing against this. (Heck, I provided the idea for the
second example.) I'm just saying it hasn't really been requested
before and that I'm w
On Feb 9, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:55:51 +0530, David Latapie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:07:49 +0100, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
- LH (caption for list! A must-have)
Why not using the title attribute?
Do yo
On Feb 8, 2007, at 9:00 PM, David Latapie wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:17:32 +, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007, at 07:57, Karl Dubost wrote:
unlikely. "div" and "span" elements didn't exist in HTML+.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_1.html
Ironically I was just readin
I've been reading section 6.2 about contentEditable. To my mind it
should be explicitly stated that events enabled and scripting is
turned on in editable elements. One of the key differences between
contentEditable and designMode is how they handle scripting and events.
So my question is, sho
I second Anne's opinion about a new attribute isContentEditable. Both
Internet Explorer and Safari have implemented this already although
Safari's support for inherit has a few bugs. It really is needed for
compatibility.
The empty string indeed causes the element to be contentEditable in
se problems that can work.
What
I'm saying is that having some way of isolating a script would be
ideal
and I was curious as to what others had to say about it.
- James
Jorgen Horstink wrote:
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:30 PM, James M Snell wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
[snip]
Frame
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:30 PM, James M Snell wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
[snip]
Frames are a terrible solution. The content is after all a part
of the
page it's hosted in, but we want to sandbox it to make sure it can't
do any harm.
The proposed alternative is severely underdefined
Hi,
The conformance requirements section[1] states that:
/HTML documents that use the new features described in this specification
/>/and that are
/>/served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be sent as text/html and must
/>/start with the
/>/following DOCTYPE: .
/
So, if I read this correctl
On 5/6/06, Dean Edwards http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org>> wrote:
>/ Martijn wrote:
/> >/ > I was thinking, maybe a fullscreen (and a normalscreen event or
/> >/ > something like that) event would be useful?
/> >/ > Also, a fullScreen property (which returns true or false) o
“The contenteditable attribute is a common attribute. User agents must
support this attribute on all HTML elements.”
How about del? It sounds odd to me to allow content of a del element to
be editable.
Second, I am interested why User Editing actions are mostly
UA-dependent. To my mind there
19 matches
Mail list logo
