On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Right, I assumed that the accept attribute on textarea is a subset of
the accept attribute on the input element. It is reasonable to assume
that as otherwise the attribute is not really well-defined and because
with very few exceptions,
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Source level
The language is en-GB-hixie not en-GB-x-Hixie (as defined in Hixie English
1.0-pre38 :-).
Fixed.
1.9. (and elsewhere)
It appears that conformant is not generally accepted in dictionaries.
(Conforming is.)
It's commonly used these
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Christoph P�per wrote:
*Henri Sivonen*:
2.4.
Does ISO 8601 define how its flavor of the Gregorian calendar rolls
backwards all the way to, say, 1900 or 1 AD?
By default ISO 8601 uses the proleptic Gregorian calendar, i.e. there are no
null days
* Ian Hickson wrote:
2.14.
Authors may include an accept attribute on textarea elements to indicate
the
type of content expected. User agents may use this attribute to provide more
appropriate editors, syntax highlighting, spelling checkers, etc. The value
of
the attribute must be a
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Ian Hickson wrote:
2.14.
Authors may include an accept attribute on textarea elements to indicate
the
type of content expected. User agents may use this attribute to provide
more
appropriate editors, syntax highlighting, spelling
* Ian Hickson wrote:
I think we're talking about different parts of the spec. The accept
attribute in 2.14 is for textarea and is new to WF2. It is vaguely
defined and has no UA conformance requirements. It is mostly intended to
spurr implementors into coming up with new interaction models for
These are based on the 2006-01-10 version.
Source level
The language is en-GB-hixie not en-GB-x-Hixie (as defined in Hixie
English 1.0-pre38 :-).
1.9. (and elsewhere)
It appears that conformant is not generally accepted in
dictionaries. (Conforming is.)
1.9. 2.5.
The spec does not have
