On 16-Apr-07, at 3:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 16, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Tyler Keating wrote:
Hi,
I'm bringing this up again with a different tact, because the more
that I think about it, the more I believe it has the ability to
significantly change the perceptio
very
simple to implement.
Please give this some thought. I appreciate your comments.
Tyler Keating
CEO Concept Digital Inc. -- don't be impressed, it's just me
* I could export an HTML version to be served, but I can't share both
ways with the same file and this mean
On 11-Apr-07, at 9:35 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 4/11/07, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> It's a really good way to archive, but IE won't handle it and most
> plug-ins don't accept data URIs, so there are problems with that
> use-case. (unless browsers
On 11-Apr-07, at 4:17 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 4/11/07, Tyler Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I apologize if I've missed this in the specification or mailing
archives, but I have a suggestion related to standardizing web
"archives" in HTML5. Currently, I k
Hi,
I apologize if I've missed this in the specification or mailing
archives, but I have a suggestion related to standardizing web
"archives" in HTML5. Currently, I know that Firefox uses Mozilla
Archive Format (.maf), Internet Explorer and Opera use MIME HTML
(.mht) and Safari uses its
