Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > > [...] Since this topic is a potential security flaw in shipping software, I think it's probably unwise and irresponsible to be discussing the details in a public forum. I'm sorry I sound like I keep trying to shut down this thread. I'm

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > > > > The spec just reflects implementations. The majority of > > implementations of (by usage) have said they want to drop it, > > There was a lot of pushback on those lists against dropping it, and no > clear arguments have been made for

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

> On 3 Sep 2015, at 20:21, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: >>> >>> The spec just reflects implementations. The majority of >>> implementations of (by usage) have said they want to drop it, >> >> There was a lot of pushback on those

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > The post foolip pointed to points out that is actually rather > > insecure (e.g. using MD5). One could argue that _keeping_ is > > actually more harmful to asymetric-key cryptography than removing > > it... > > Im not an expert here, but my

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > >>> > >>> and the other major implementation has never supported []. > >> > >> You mean IE? IE has always had something that did the same: > >> > >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374863(VS.85).aspx > >> > >> It is not idea, and

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> > > Im not an expert here, but my understanding from reading some wikipedia > articles was that a preimage attack on md5 was 2^123. For a pre-image attack that’s true (or thereabouts), the real problem is

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On 3 September 2015 at 20:21, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > > > > > > The spec just reflects implementations. The majority of > > > implementations of (by usage) have said they want to drop it, > > > > There was a lot of pushback on

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On 3 September 2015 at 21:27, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > > > The post foolip pointed to points out that is actually rather > > > insecure (e.g. using MD5). One could argue that _keeping_ is > > > actually more harmful to asymetric-key

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

> On 3 Sep 2015, at 21:44, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > > and the other major implementation has never supported []. You mean IE? IE has always had something that did the same:

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

> On 2 Sep 2015, at 14:56, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, henry.st...@bblfish.net > wrote: >> >>> On 1 Sep 2015, at 19:56, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> >>> As far as I can tell, therefore, things here are

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

> On 1 Sep 2015, at 19:56, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: >> >> As the WhatWG only recenly moved to Github members here may not have >> noticed that has been deprecated. >> >> I opened https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/67 to give

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > >> On 1 Sep 2015, at 19:56, Ian Hickson wrote: >> >> As far as I can tell, therefore, things here are working exactly as one >> should expect. > > Indeed: they seem to be working as one would

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > > As the WhatWG only recenly moved to Github members here may not have > noticed that has been deprecated. > > I opened https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/67 to give space for the > discussion. It is a pitty that this was closed so

[whatwg] deprecating

As the WhatWG only recenly moved to Github members here may not have noticed that has been deprecated. I opened https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/67 to give space for the discussion. It is a pitty that this was closed so quickly ( within an hour ) without giving members and the public (

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [cut] We don't have to touch parsing at all to accomplish essentially this.The issue you're worried about is getting crazy semantics applied to individual letters. Semantic

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b

Pentasis writes: [Asbjørn Ulsberg writes:] However, as you write and as HTML5 defines it, there is nothing wrong with small per se, and I agree that as an element indicating smallprint, it works just fine. Since my initial reply might have been a bit too colored by the HTML4

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Smylers wrote: Asbjørn Ulsberg writes: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:26:22 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about the semantics of the typesetting. However, smaller things are less noticeable, and it's

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Smylers wrote: Asbjørn Ulsberg writes: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:26:22 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about the

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course that's possible, but, as you noticed too, only by redefining the small semantics, and is not a best choice per se. That's both

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tab Atkins Jr. ha scritto: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course that's possible, but, as you noticed too, only by

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:26:22 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about the semantics of the typesetting. However, smaller things are less noticeable, and it's generally accepted that the author of the document wishes

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Asbjørn Ulsberg writes: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:26:22 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about the semantics of the typesetting. However, smaller things are less noticeable, and it's generally accepted that

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: The small element represents small print [...] The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance [...] Both definitions seems rather presentational (contrasting, for example, the new

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

On 2008/11/24 16:19 (GMT) Smylers composed: So I still think small works for denoting that something is of smaller importance. I do too, but I don't believe less importance can be the only inference. One could simply want smaller text, without expecting that inference. e.g., just because fine

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Felix Miata writes: On 2008/11/24 16:19 (GMT) Smylers composed: So I still think small works for denoting that something is of smaller importance. I do too, but I don't believe less importance can be the only inference. One could simply want smaller text, without expecting that

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:19:44 +0100, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see how that explains why small is an inappropriate tag to use for things which an author wishes to be less noticeable. I was thinking mostly about the tag's current usage on the web, which is a crazy mix between

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b

I was thinking mostly about the tag's current usage on the web, which is a crazy mix between the HTML4 and HTML5 definition of the element. HTML4 defines it purely presentational, HTML5 mostly semantical. In that context, I believe small is inappropriate. However, as you write and as HTML5

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b

Pentasis wrote: I was thinking mostly about the tag's current usage on the web, which is a crazy mix between the HTML4 and HTML5 definition of the element. HTML4 defines it purely presentational, HTML5 mostly semantical. In that context, I believe small is inappropriate. However, as you

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b

Am Montag, den 24.11.2008, 15:10 -0800 schrieb Jonas Sicking: Note that the semantic meaning that HTML5 gives it is very weak. All it says is that the text inside the b is different from the text outside it. All the existing uses on the web that I've seen are correct according to this

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Pentasis writes: 2) When using small on different text-nodes throughout the document, one would expect all these text-nodes to be semantically the same. But they are not (unless all of them are copyright notices). In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

2) When using small on different text-nodes throughout the document, one would expect all these text-nodes to be semantically the same. But they are not (unless all of them are copyright notices). In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about the semantics of

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small , b ?

Pentasis writes: In printed material users are typically given no out-of-band information about the semantics of the typesetting. However, smaller things are less noticeable, and it's generally accepted that the author of the document wishes the reader to pay less attention to them

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 06:09, Nils Dagsson Moskopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The small element represents small print [...] The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance [...] Both definitions seems rather

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

The small element represents small print [...] The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance [...] Both definitions seems rather presentational (contrasting, for example, the new semantic definition for the i

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

Dne Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:40:20 +0100 Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal/-a: I agree with the original poster on this. 1) Just because it makes sense to a human (it doesn't to me), does not mean it makes sense to a machine. 2) When using small on different text-nodes throughout the document,

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The small element represents small print [...] The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance [...] Both definitions seems rather

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

Of course not. You're not intended to. What you *do* get, though, is that this is a word which is *intentionally* stylistically offset from the rest of the text. This conveys semantic meaning to a human - it means that the word is special or being used in a particular context. b and i don't

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course not. You're not intended to. What you *do* get, though, is that this is a word which is *intentionally* stylistically offset from the rest of the text. This conveys semantic meaning to a human - it means that the

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

If we wish to communicate that level of semantics, yes. It may not be useful to us. If you *really* need some metadata/semantics, @class probably can't convey it with enough granularity. Check out the big discussion from a few months ago about ccRel and RDFa. Not yet maybe, but we could

Re: [whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we wish to communicate that level of semantics, yes. It may not be useful to us. If you *really* need some metadata/semantics, @class probably can't convey it with enough granularity. Check out the big discussion from

[whatwg] Deprecating small, b ?

The small element represents small print [...] The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance [...] Both definitions seems rather presentational (contrasting, for example, the new semantic definition for the i