right
anyway, if they want to function correctly in the presence of ISP HTTP
proxies (AOL, TMobile, etc), corporate firewalls, and server-side
stuff like Citrix Netscalers.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
On 7/2/07, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/2/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, I think offline caches should respect the Vary: HTTP
> header, and maybe more. Applications will need to do this right
> anyway, if they want to
On 7/2/07, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/3/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/2/07, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Basic
On 7/3/07, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's private as far as HTTP is concerned: private to one client application.
That is not the HTTP definition of private cache.
Doesn't much matter, though.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter
, now it really is dead."
> -- http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19733.html
There were also many of the opinion that a group chartered to work on
HTML should handle it. It is pretty tricky to standardize much about
it without dictating UI.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
nd the
audio/video elements will have poor interoperability because of it.
Maybe the spec should say that directly.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
ind malice,
immorality, or profiteering at the root. I do think the recent changes
to the document are supported by weak pseudo-legal doubletalk from
engineers afraid to get in trouble.
Don't expect good quality specifications from such a climate.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
t; should either be a MUST (which is inappropriate at this juncture for
> reasons that Dave Singer. Ian Hickson and myself have posted about in
> previous messages) or just not be mentioned at all.
It isn't weak language. It places the blame squarely on the party who
fails to meet the re
hile leaving the API in the document, as if there
were no target codecs.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
ort does not make the codec non-proprietary. For
example, it could be the offering of a cartel.
In this case, you have to pay to use it, so it's pretty clear that it
is proprietary. At least for those of us that speak English as a first
language.
http://www.answers.com/proprietary&r=67
--
On Dec 12, 2007 2:08 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As it stands, all the vendors who would implement Theora due to the SHOULD
> in the spec already are implementing Theora.
So?
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
2008/3/6 Aaron Boodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> How is it different than the HTML5 database API?
It's not. Neither belongs in an HTML specification, but a charismatic
leader should be able to overcome this obstacle.
--
Robert Sayre
n my Mac this runs faster under
> Google Chrome in VMware than natively in the latest Webkit nightly.)
I see that your test case include setTimeout(doIteration, 0);
Are you sure this doesn't boil down to the difference between Chrome
and WebKit's setTimeout minimum delay?
--
Robert
andled by authentication specifications.
--
Robert Sayre
On 11/28/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Are multiple alternate links with the same type attribute
considered to be equivalent regardless of where those links appear
in the document.
What do you mean by "equivalent" ?
--
Robert Sayre
data on his side. People do it, and it tends to
work interoperably.
--
Robert Sayre
xplanations. What would the text of a bug filed on WordPress
look like? Let's assume you actually want them to fix it, not just
make a point.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
On 11/29/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:10:10 +0100, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better to prove that the current rules result in
> easy explanations. What would the text of a bug filed on WordPress
On 11/29/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:29:42 +0100, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The bug would request that Wordpress doesn't try to output XML for the
>> text/html media type. That seems to be the problem he
On 11/29/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
> So far, WHAT-WG members have failed to write a one or two paragraph bug
> report in clear English, with the target being the relatively advanced
> HTML authors working on WordPre
On 11/29/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I have submitted a bug report.
http://trac.wordpress.org/ticket/3406
Let's see what happens.
Well, that didn't seem too effective. :/
--
Robert Sayre
On 11/29/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/29/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, I have submitted a bug report.
>
> http://trac.wordpress.org/ticket/3406
>
> Let's see what happens.
Well, that didn't seem too effective.
x27;s a wiki, so edit and link as you like.
- Rob
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Nov 29, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: WikiWikiWeb (was: Autodiscovery Draft Issues)
To: Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: atom-syntax , [EMAIL PROTECT
e is like serving tea in front of a tidal wave.
--
Robert Sayre
On 12/1/06, Andrew Fedoniouk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert, what do you think?
I don't have an opinion.
--
Robert Sayre
ndary between HTML5 and those tags were delineated with a URI in an
attribute with the name 'xmlns' (no prefix machinery). This suggestion
should not be confused with using an XML parser or XML Namespaces to
process HTML5.
--
Robert Sayre
On 12/1/06, Kyle Marvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still listening to the debate, but Mark's argument resonates with me.
Yes, Mark is starting to convince me as well.
--
Robert Sayre
ose
putting them in Web Applications 1.0 would be a good idea.
I think this would be a great thing to standardize in the WHAT-WG.
--
Robert Sayre
them are social. Are we worried that this will result in an unruly
population of extensions and a Tower of Babel problem?
--
Robert Sayre
On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
> I want to cut and paste MathML and SVG and other things into my web
> pages.
Then you'll have to use the XML variant and the XML MIME type.
Why? I don't care if
On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
> I don't care if features that rely on XML serialization break.
I *really* don't understand what you're asking for. You want to be able to
use some features but don't care
meaningful information or default presentation from the content, and
thus users would not be able to access the data.
Right, so no one will use those things unless browsers support them.
Is that bad?
--
Robert Sayre
be XML.
4. I doubt that HTML parsing requirements for unknown elements would be
completely compatible with it.
We are still writing those requirements, so we'll have to see.
--
Robert Sayre
rer. It is not working well in recent
WebKit nightlies, but I'm sure that is temporary.
--
Robert Sayre
On 12/2/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
recent WebKit nightlies.
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:55:00 +0100, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> There's probably no way you can serialize that docu
d. Maybe we all
need a little time to marinate on it.
--
Robert Sayre
antically-rich" is a useful thing to say about a
markup language, especially when discussing a deployed vocabulary.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
> I don't think we need to settle this issue in December 2006, but I do
> think there is ample evidence of interoperable b
On 12/4/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It certainly isn't something that it would make sense to encourage.
Is this different than what IE does with ?
--
Robert Sayre
ere I would need help
with is in getting it into the codebase. (Robert? You listening?)
I am willing to participate (read: babysit bugzilla) in such an
experiment, but I don't think it will be as easy as you suspect, and
HTML test suites are never what they should be. :)
--
Robert Sayre
blame.cgi?file=mozilla/uriloader/base/nsURILoader.cpp&rev=1.120#289
--
Robert Sayre
x27;t agree that the MIME
type "text/plain" carries as strong a message as it used to.
It would be possible to turn off sniffing for some 'text/plain' values
if there were a better indicator available. For example, by using a
new Content-Disposition value (web compatible beca
ML database?
--
Robert Sayre
On 12/8/06, Elliotte Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
> I disagree. Wouldn't it be more profitable to build an HTML database?
>
No. XML databases are a lot more general purpose and support many more
use cases.
says who?
--
Robert Sayre
"I would
attribute is more necessary in HTML5
than it is in HTML4 or HTML6. Besides, it's so dependent on the idea
of a single source document that it will never survive tranlation to
fragments in syndication feeds, livejournals, and myspace pages.
--
Robert Sayre
ars later, it is clear that RDF has failed to do so.
<http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/05/21/RDFNet>
It is not worth spending WG time on, IMHO. I do agree that people will
want to stuff "metadata" in the head element, so we should give them a
way to do it.
--
Robert Sayre
else? Not to be rude, but
I don't care what engineers think they know about patents. From a
technical perspective, a mandated baseline format is good, so we
should spec one.
--
Robert Sayre
s.
What existing markup leads us to believe this will be an effective
method for content negotiation?
--
Robert Sayre
World Wide Web: <http://groups.msn.com/whatwg-legal/homepage>
Internet Email Address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
People with legal concerns should send their messages there, while the
WHATWG in general focuses on technical matters.
thanks for understanding,
Robert Sayre
uld be difficult to speak for all Gecko or WebKit
embedders, though.
--
Robert Sayre
On 3/22/07, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would it not have made more sense to at least have asked the WHAT-WG
No.
--
Robert Sayre
t would be nice not
to get weird legal email as well.
--
Robert Sayre
der royalty free licensing. But it is not under the
control of a single vendor. That is the important difference, not whether
the technology is patented or not.
Proprietary technologies can come from a group of vendors as well.
--
Robert Sayre
ented or not.
>
> Proprietary technologies can come from a group of vendors as well.
Yes, if that group is closed.
How can I join MPEG-LA?
<http://www.mpegla.com>
--
Robert Sayre
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The technologies I listed _are_ covered by patents, yet they are not
> > proprietary. This seems like
traffic and remained focused on markup, but I
understand that may not be possible, even though it is kind of sad.
I'm sorry I caused concern.
--
Robert Sayre
adopt a
similar stance to all new features. For example, I would be very
surprised to see Web Sockets fail on its own, since the benefits seem
clear. But I could be wrong, and it should face a survival test.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
ough.
The incredibly sucky outcome is that Chrome ships patent-encumbered
"open web" features, just like Apple. That is reprehensible.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
he
> end.
Actually, the spec used to mention Ogg specifically.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Every codec has the same problem;
Every codec has the same problem if you can't prove a negative. That
turns out to be hard.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
60 matches
Mail list logo
