On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 18:39, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Adam Shannon wrote:
>>
>> I don't like having the only barrier between changing the default search
>> engine for a user's browser be a single dialog box. This list (and
>> others) hav
API which could be largely abused. (Drag and drop browser controls
over tons of sites asking for permission to be the default.)
--
Adam Shannon
Web Developer
University of Northern Iowa
Sophomore -- Computer Science B.S.
http://ashannon.us
So, each person will be responsible for updating the address book?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 21:49, Kit Grose wrote:
> System address book, perhaps?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kit Grose
> User Experience + Technical Director
> iQmultimedia
>
> +61 (0)2 4260 7946
>
> On 19/06
emails.
> 2) For entry of Lat/Long coordinates which can be entered either
> manually or with some kind of map like interface.
>
> These are two separate proposals and I both could co-exist one as
> type="location" and the other as type="gps"
>
> --
> Eitan Adler
>
--
Adam Shannon
Web Developer
http://ashannon.us
of a web form, a user signs their digital signature to confirm
> acceptance of terms.
>
> Use Case:
>
> While filling out an online profile, a user submits a simple doodle as their
> avatar.
>
> Use Case:
>
> To quickly log into an online system, a user scribbles a password,
> which their server tests for fidelity to their prior scribbled input.
>
>
> -Charles
>
>
--
Adam Shannon
Web Developer
http://ashannon.us
be punted for
> now. This will let us evaluate the proposals relative to real needs.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--,'``. fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
--
Adam Shannon
Web Developer
http://ashannon.us
clicked
> more than once or is this clearly a behavior (and therefore be solved with
> JS)?
>
>
> Regards
--
Adam Shannon
Web Developer
http://ashannon.us
ultipage much faster to work with, and I'm sure I'm
> not alone. So hopefully it can be brought back to life some time soon?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Remy Sharp
>
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Adam Shannon
> wrote:
> > If we never cut things off then the spec will really never be finished
> > before 2020.
>
> Why does this matter? At the end of the day isn't the goal to have the
> largest number of int
g". If somebody is
> interested in exploring an idea, they should be able to just start
> doing that.
>
> - a
>
If we never cut things off then the spec will really never be finished
before 2020. I agree that somethings can be reopened but there are also
some which have been resolved and any new discussions are coming a year++
later.
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/16 Adam Shannon :
>
> > It has been tried but Apple will not implement it due to hardware
> > limitations.
>
>
> Hardware limitations or patent limitations? Either seems ill-matched
> to evidence-based r
* Vorbis is widely adopted by major companies in portable media players
> * Vorbis is royalty-free
>
It has been tried but Apple will not implement it due to hardware
limitations.
>
> Remco
>
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
; workable for those content providers, e.g. Wikimedia, who don't have
> > the money, and won't under principle, to put up stuff in a format
> > rendered radioactive by known enforced patents.
>
> That's why "should" is not the same as "must". Those
ttp://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/ )
>
>
> -jJ
>
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Adam Shannon wrote:
>
>> What about slower, public, or WIFI connections that can't support 5 people
>> going to yahoo.com and having audio of interviews load? Yahoo would
>&
was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
> healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
> own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
> 53:5-6]
>
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
ir own what to do with that information.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The spec does document how to distinguish containers via MIME type. Beyond
>> that I'm not sure what we can do.
>>
>> does support fallback, so in practice you can just use Theora and
>> H.264 and cover all bases.
>>
>>
>
> I'd like to see this added to and :
>
> "User agents should provide controls to enable the manual selection of
> fallback content."
>
> "User agents should provide an activation behavior, when fallback content
> is required, detailing why the primary content could not be used."
>
> Many non-technical users will want to know why there is a black screen (or
> still image), even though they can hear the audio.
>
>
> -Charles
>
>
>
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
it would help if third-party plug-ins
> for codecs could be sandboxed so that they cannot have access to anything
> they do not have to access in order to do their job, and only via an API
> provided by the host.
> IMHO,
> Chris
>
>
>
--
- Adam Shannon ( http://ashannon.us )
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Shannon wrote:
>
>> I don't see any value in the "user-agent specified amount of time" delay
>> in stopping scripts. How can you write cleanup code when you have no
>> consistency in how long it gets to run
d be
very useful in conjunction with cleanup code to flag if a cleanup
operation failed to complete. Storage and Database interfaces are too
heavy for the purpose of simple data like this.
Shannon
allow reuse of existing port 80 and 443 web
services which would resolve the cross-domain issues (the CGI can relay
the actual service via a backend connection) and most of the proxy
issues above (since proxy GET and CONNECT are more reliable on these ports).
Shannon
Websocket header.
Shannon
name or IP. Removes the risk of command injection via URI.)
* Compatibility (HTTP compatible. Proxy and Virtual Hosting compatible.
Allows a CGI script to emulate a WebSocket)
I'm not saying the current proposal doesn't provide some of these
things, just that I believe this proposal does it better.
Shannon
e service itself can
decide whether the check is even necessary and if so whether it should
be strict or loose or regex-based without the client automatically
hanging up the connection.
Shannon
th a wrapper for existing services.
Other than that it behaves as an asynchronous binary TCP socket. What
exactly are you concerned about?
Shannon
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Shannon wrote:
I would like to restore the pros and cons.
I just merged the non-obvious ones into the text and removed the obvious
ones.
Merging pros and cons into the opening paragraph is a poor design
choice. It makes it more difficult for
or "generic metadata" in HTML5 should be "it conveys
metadata" and "it works in HTML5".
Shannon
Ben Adida wrote:
Shannon wrote:
http://some.official.vocabulary/1.1/metadata.cm";>
Not workable, as this in the HEAD of the document and oftentimes we
simply can't expect users to be able to modify the head of the document
(widgets, blog engines where you can only modif
Ben Adida wrote:
Shannon wrote:
I think you were on to something with the CSS-like approach. Ian has
stated earlier that class should be considered a generic categorisation
element rather than only a CSS hook.
Three things:
1) specifying the semantics only in a separate file rules
considered too heavy to be a default language (and
they suffer from being impossible to embed inline or in
blocks) then the "cascading metadata" approach above might be useful.
Since it can reuse existing CSS parsers, editors and behaviour
(selectors, cascading model) it should have a lower implementation
burden than XML+Namespaces.
Shannon
stinction really necessary? Can we just make
everything signed integers and consistently call the full range
"integer" and the positive range "integer greater than 0"?
Shannon
.
If I have to pursue this through XSLT then I will but this just feels
like a HTML shortcoming to me, since as you correctly point it, there
are script and style considerations involved that may be specific to
HTML as a rendering protocol. I've offered many good arguments for this
proposal. The rest depends on those arguments being weighed across your
claims of alternatives and implementation problems. You should have a
pretty good idea how I view those arguments by now.
Shannon
assive effort,
WebWorkers is massive effort, client-side includes is quite trivial,
relatively speaking. Certainly worth further investigation in light of
its obvious benefits.
Shannon
sure it's
been debated endlessly. I'm just stating my case for going ahead with
this feature.
Shannon
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Shannon wrote:
The discussion on seamless iframes reminded me of something I've felt
was missing from HTML - an equivalent client functionality to
server-side includes as provided by PHP, Coldfusion and SSI.
What advantage does this have
sm is to use a meta tag in the head of the master document:
I would consider any content system that allowed untrusted users to
write their own head tags to be incurable insecure; however this
requirement should ensure that the majority do not suddenly experience a
wave of new exploits in HTML5 browsers.
Shannon
Shannon wrote:
Think about the kind of applications that use parallel "compute nodes"
and you'll realise that 98% don't exist outside of academia and
laboratories due to synchronisation, network latencies and other
issues that implementing Javascript workers won't
start to grow on you.
To do that it would have to at minimum allow the passing of Javascript
primitives. Booleans, Integers, Floats, Strings, Nulls and Arrays should
be passed by value (removing any custom properties they might have been
given). Marshalling everything through Unicode strings is a terrible idea.
Shannon
f academics and science geeks using highly parallel
specialist systems and languages, not web developers.
b.) Valuable enough to be commercial software - and therefore requiring
protection against illicit copying (something Javascript can't provide).
Shannon
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Shannon wrote:
I've been following the WebWorkers discussion for some time trying to
make sense of the problems it is trying to solve. I am starting to
come to the conclusion that it provides little not already provided by:
setTimeout(mainThreadFunc,1)
setTi
xing non-thread-safe
practices in the specification so future UAs can better manage threading
internally (ie: video, IO, sockets, JS all running on seperate threads
or even sets of threads per open tab/window)?
Shannon
it is impossible or just difficult.
Shannon
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Shannon wrote:
I've been following the WebWorkers discussion for some time trying to
make sense of the problems it is trying to solve. I am starting to
come to the conclusion that it provides little not already provided by:
setTimeout(mainThreadFunc,1)
setTi
a crippled API that
pushes them into proprietary extensions, plugins and hacks to achieve
something that every other major language already provides.
Shannon
EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Already done. The topic is currently waiting on moderation.
Shannon
"this block follows that one". Nonetheless I will
do as you suggest.
Shannon
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Shannon wrote:
Something I think is really missing from HTML is "linked text" (in the
traditional desktop publishing sense), where two or more text boxes ar
rs.
I accept this proposal may be difficult to implement but its use case is
significant with regards to articles and blogs, especially in an era of
user-submitted content and wide screen layouts.
Shannon
ut the status of Dirac support though, since it was
apparently finalised in January. Is this being planned? Would any other
vendors care to comment on Dirac?
Shannon
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
From: Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dnia 01-03-2008, So o godzinie 19:36 -0800, Nicholas C. Zakas pisze:
Perhaps it would better be named ?
"Aside" is customary in dialogue annotations, I
tructure (ie: CGI) a
potentially more difficult and error-prone affair. In fact as it stands
I would say the current proposal rules out both CGI and proxy support
entirely since it cannot handle the addition of otherwise valid HTTP
headers (such as Expires, X-Forwarded-For or Date) in the first 85 bytes.
Shannon
n on these ports (multiple web
servers, shared host, tunnelled connections, 2 websocket apps on one
host, etc...).
My mistake. I misread this as *requiring* port 81 and 815. It appears
that is not the case. All ports are valid.
Shannon
ity. The whole concept needs to
be approached from the position of making HTTP's features (which are
already implemented in most UAs) available to Javascript (while
preventing the exploit of non-HTTP services). I do not believe this is
difficult if my recommendations above are followed. I do not wish to be
overly critical without contributing a solution, so if there are no
serious objections to the points I've made I will put time into
reframing my objections as a compete specification proposal.
Shannon
HTML5 has to play in this would
be to ensure that Javascript can open, read, write and close a
connection object and handle errors in a consistent manner. The
handshaking requirement and new headers appear to complicate matters
rather than help.
Shannon
nal attacks. The difference is not in the ability to DDOS,
it's in the ability to maintain a connection in the presense of a server challenge, despite WebSockets proposed
safeguards (keeping in mind these proposed safeguards render the protocol useless for accessing legacy devices).
Shann
I think a major problem with raw TCP connections is that they would be
the nightmare of every administrator. If web pages could use every
sort of homebrew protocol on all possible ports, how could you still
sensibly configure a firewall without the danger of accidentally
disabling mary sue grand
ns of existing
(opted-in) services and gadgets.
Shannon
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Shannon wrote:
ISSUE.2) We now only send valid HTTP(s) over HTTP(s) ports.
I understand the reasoning but I do not believe this should be limited
to ports 80 and 443.
You misunderstand; it's not the ports that are limited, it's
pond without expires or max-age headers? Would this hog
threads causing apache/squid to stop serving requests? Would this work
through Tor?
Shannon
n on browser vendors?
Unlikely. It's behaviour is nearly identical to
onclick="window.location=foo" which is already supported on the majority
of modern browsers except Lynx.
Is denying designers features they want going to increase standards
compliance?
No. It will reduce compliance.
Regards,
Shannon
ithout consideration for blind users. It is this situation I
am trying to avoid. A valid document should provide valid alt
information, not empty ones. An altgroup supports this - empty alt tags
do not.
Shannon
ed. If you
are implying a group can be denoted by being at the same block level or
in the correct order in the stream (no intervening images) then I doubt
that would work in practice.
Shannon
Shannon wrote:
What about this as a possible solution?
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple;
Bill Mason wrote:
I think it would be more logical for the specification to support the
common, existing, reasonable auth
up is defined but required in all other cases.
Shannon
100 characters
worth of keywords in there. You can add insanity to the problems facing
blind users on the web!
Shannon
hout being told, but 95% of the mainstream internet will not -
given half a chance.
Shannon
s used to style it is simply asking for trouble since it will
also trigger any defined styles (probably unintentionally) and/or create
nonsense categories like "book_class" in the processors' DB. I could
imagine such a situation leading to the following catalogue output:
This article contains:
- 4 book citations
- 2 book_class citations
- 1 squiggly_underline citations
Hope that makes my position on this clearer. If I misunderstood
somebodies comments then I apologise.
Shannon
then some sites are going to get stung and not
necessarily at any fault of their own - since the intellectual
distinctions between "labels" and "classes" is of no concern to somebody
putting pretty borders on a page.
Shannon
s - but of course nobody can.
On the other hand except for rel="stylesheet" the rel attribute does not
have these encumbrances and so deserves consideration.
Shannon
e which basically serves
this purpose already. It also has less potential for conflicts than the
type attribute since I have only ever seen rel used in the header
whereas type has existing meaning for input fields and script tags.
The Neutronium Alchemist
Shannon
Dnia 01-03-2008, So o godzinie 19:36 -0800, Nicholas C. Zakas pisze:
Perhaps it would better be named ?
"Aside" is customary in dialogue annotations,
I have never seen any "callout".
Chris
Call it . It may sound crude but it's hard to mistake its meaning.
Shannon
Pawe? Stradomski wrote:
> W li?cie Shannon z dnia czwartek 28 lutego 2008:
>How should nested links
> work? Suppose I put href="http://a"; on element and
href="http://b"; on a
> inside that . What should happen when the user clicks on that
> ? That's t
more
difficult than the existing implementations of onmouseup/down/whatever?
It's basically the same thing - only *simpler* (no scripting, events,
bubbling, etc).
So on all counts I find the claims in the FAQ incorrect and urge the
WHATWG and browser vendors to reconsider the inclusion of a global link
or href attribute.
Shannon
cture, nested
hyperlinks, onclick fallbacks and better consistency in the spec. Being
such a common element web authors will probably keep using for
many years to come regardless of the standard but that should not be a
problem since and link should coexist quite easily in valid
HTML. Once awareness has spread then future drafts could depreciate the
href attribute on anchors.
Shannon
. A legal contract
signed by members and defining rules and penalties for non-compliance
would be a step in that direction. I don't think the public are prepared
to accept promises anymore.
Shannon
n't be followed by all vendors? I believe we should
and apparently there are precedents for doing so.
Having said all that I don't want this thread to continue the video
codec discussion. What I want is a clearer position statement from
WHATWG on the publics role in defining this specification.
Shannon
ss, just as I still go to work each day even though
I could get hit by a bus.
Shannon
NOT be an additional patent risk?
You can't state an IMPOSSIBLE condition as a method for 'moving forward'
and then expect people to take your claims seriously.
Shannon
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Shannon wrote:
Ok so I found the other list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Nokia state their
reasons and clearly it was discussed (at Cambridge apparently) but why
two lists for one standard?
Historical reasons -- the W3C initially wasn't interest
e answered then what hope have
we for a baseline video format?
If answers to the above questions exist then please don't just answer
them here. Anything short of a formal document on the WHATWG can't
possibly represent the group as a whole and is just going to be raised
again anyway. In other words the mailling list is not the best place to
archive these answers (if any are forthcoming).
Shannon
discussions and I'll concede your point (and join - it is public, and free
right?)
Ok so I found the other list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Nokia state their
reasons and clearly it was discussed (at Cambridge apparently) but why
two lists for one standard?
Shannon
ng group will *recommend* the next best thing.
Something that open-source software and plugins will handle if the
vendors refuse. Which right now is Ogg.
Shannon
re, in effect,
'bashing' themselves. Not my problem. Good luck to them and their
entrenched monopolies right? It's their 'right' as a corporation to
wreck standards for the benefit of their shareholders? They sound very
reasonable, until you realise that one way or another the public will be
paying for it.
Shannon
in the future we will be both be happy, however your optimism is not 'reality' or helpful. My
objection to the current text is that it looks like an orchestrated stalling tactic. It is not a neutral, wise or
logical position. If you want the spec to reflect current reality then just rebadge the HTML4 spec. Going forwards means
making changes, not stating the obvious or maintaining the status quo based on Nokia's whims.
Shannon
e list. Even though it was
neither a SHOULD or MUST specification they were mentioned and it seems
to me that counts for something. So did the fact the formats in question
were believed to be public-domain. However, I acknowledge the
speculative nature of this as I acknowledge the speculative nature of
your other claims (like browser manufactures not supporting OGG when the
spec becomes final).
Shannon
t would be a lie.
I am too old to believe companies and their spokespeople are altruistic
(sorry Dave).
Shannon
ortional to its importance and therefore not a
reason to shut down the debate.
Shannon
I apologise to the rest of
the list but this is an much more serious issue than the format of the
tag to me.
Shannon
agreement?
6.) How much compelling content is required before the draft is
reverted. Does Wikipeadia count as compelling?
Answering these questions is the way forward, not back-and-forthing over
legal issues.
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Shannon wrote:
Arguing the definition
however since this applies to EVERY
video codec and even HTML5 itself it is also irrelevant.
Shannon
YouTube's official position on this?
I know that's a lot of questions but I feel they SHOULD be answered
rather than simply attacking the Ogg format.
Shannon
4 or obsfucated)?
Shannon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Hickson wrote:
I just checked in a change to make globalStorage far simpler -- I dropped
all the domain manipulation stuff, and made it same-origin instead. I also
dropped StorageItem and just made the Storage stuff return strings.
e HTML5 draft, exactly as it was, as it
was originally agreed, as many have requested - AS IS APPROPRIATE!
Shannon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian Hickson said (among other things):
It seems that what you are suggesting is that foo.example.com cannot trust
example.com, because example.com could then steal data from
foo.example.com. But there's a much simpler attack scenario for
example.com: it can just take over foo.example.com direct
e send a secret hash or public key in order to prove it 'owns' the
key. The secret could even be a timestamp of the exact time the key was
set or just a hash of the users site login. eg:
DOMAIN KEY SECRET DATA
foo.bar baz kj43h545j34h6jk534dfytyf A string.
Just one idea.
Shannon
Web Developer
aults and
omissions in this proposal that it implies UA's will solve. It seems
like a large amount of browser sniffing will be required to have any
assurance that persistent storage will work as advertised. Therefore,
the global storage proposal must be fixed or removed.
Shannon
Web Developer
95 matches
Mail list logo
