Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There's no reason why a full conformance checker couldn't be based on
OpenSP.
It would be prudent not to use OpenSP in order to avoid accidentally
allowing SGMLisms that are alien to real-world tag soup.
If I ever get around to wr
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The problem with allowing the HTML flavor and XHTML flavor diverge is
that one could no longer use HTML and XHTML serializations
interchangeably in apps that do not suffer from the HTML DOM legacy and
otherwise could treat the HTML-XHTM
On 08/04/2005, at 8:47, Matthew Thomas wrote:
It makes sense to allow bulleted/numbered lists inside paragraphs,
for two reasons:
such lists are already used in typography
they would have acceptable presentation in UAs that claim HTML4
support.
But as for inline lists, I think creating markup
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> The problem with allowing the HTML flavor and XHTML flavor diverge is
> that one could no longer use HTML and XHTML serializations
> interchangeably in apps that do not suffer from the HTML DOM legacy and
> otherwise could treat the HTML-XHTML distin
Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
Would a version parameter not be more appropriate, simpler, less
confusing to users, easier to parse, easier to understand, doesn't
confuse users into thinking that it's really an application of SGML.
Doesn't cause problems for legacy user agents like the HTM
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
...
Lists should not be classified as block level or inline level
elements within the spec.
I think they should. (Note that block and inline are different here from
the definition CSS applies to them.) That way they get another content
model that might be more suited for in
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, dolphinling wrote:
>
> Suppose you have an outline like this:
>
> Section
> |
> +--A [...]
> | |
> | +--E
> | |
> | +--F
> | |
> | +--G
> |
> +--H
> |
> +-I
> |
> +-J
>
> ...where I and J are the same level as C, D, F, and G
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, dolphinling wrote:
1st level header
content
3rd level header
content
Disagreed; the simply gets treated as an in this case, IMHO. I
don't see the advantage of having deeper sections here.
Suppose you have an outline like this:
Se
On Apr 7, 2005 9:22 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
> >
> > From which you can clearly conclude I do use DTD validation as part of
> > my QA process. All the people who have said that DTD validation is
> > absolutely useless haven't bothered to descr
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> From which you can clearly conclude I do use DTD validation as part of
> my QA process. All the people who have said that DTD validation is
> absolutely useless haven't bothered to describe their QA processes at
> all.
Nobody is stopping anyone from using
On Apr 7, 2005 8:30 PM, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2005, at 21:49, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> > this thread has shown clearly that many people contributing to the
> > WHAT-WG work do use DTD's
>
> To me it seemed that you argued that DTD validation is more useful than
> other co
On Apr 7, 2005, at 21:49, Jim Ley wrote:
this thread has shown clearly that many people contributing to the
WHAT-WG work do use DTD's
To me it seemed that you argued that DTD validation is more useful than
other conformance checks as long as the other checks are vaporware and
Lachlan Hunt was th
On Apr 7, 2005 6:59 PM, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> I don't think SGML validation is part of What WG conformance
> requirements. I thought Hixie has specifically said he doesn't bother
> with DTDs.
Hixie is simply the editor of the spe
> > Or at the very least use something that would not confuse people into
> > thinking that it is an
> > application of SGML or XML.
>
> Do you want to replace "NONSGML" with "THIS-IS-NOT-SGML"?
No, I want to replace like mechanism can be used, this
will leave it in a much stronger position for
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 13:22, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
If OpenSP was non-conformant, then any current or future UA that is
built with OpenSP as the parser would be non-conformant also, which
should not be the case.
What OpenSP-based UAs ar
On Apr 7, 2005, at 14:09, Jim Ley wrote:
Will the spec explain this some more, in particular could you document
what "standards mode" is, and exactly how user agents should use this
doctype to trigger it?
Ideally, UAs would know nothing of that particular doctype and would
trigger the standards mo
On Apr 7, 2005, at 13:58, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
And how does the XML part of your world feel about [not having a DTD
meaning they can't use entities]? (I like the idea for HTML.)
The current draft says that there is no particular DTD for XHTML5. It
doesn't
On Apr 7, 2005, at 04:07, Ian Hickson wrote:
One thing that XHTML2 does which makes a lot of sense to me is allow
nesting of certain elements within elements, as in:
I'd agree that would be nice to allow if there was no HTML legacy.
I'm trying to work out exactly what the rules that describe the a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
If OL is an inline element here, sure.
Whether or not it is rendered as block or inline within paragraphs
can be quite easily handled with CSS.
I am aware of that.
Lists should not be classified as block level or inline level
elements within the spec.
I think they should. (Note
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
...
...
If OL is an inline element here, sure.
Whether or not it is rendered as block or inline within paragraphs can
be quite easily handled with CSS. Lists should not be classified as
block level or inline level elements within t
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> Current WF2 defines a way to determinate the default submit button[1].
> While it is quite useful it would be even more useful if you could
> decide which is the default submit button in WF2 compliant UAs:
>
> # woo_who really programs like
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 14:38 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Current WF2 defines a way to determinate the default submit button[1].
> While it is quite useful it would be even more useful if you could
> decide which is the default submit button in WF2 compliant UAs:
Yes, I agree. I think Hixie pu
Jim Ley wrote:
However, a
syntax error in the initial value of a date control *will* cause the
page to stop working as intended.
Could you describe how? My reading of the error handling defined in
the spec for that situation does not lead to the failure you describe.
However the unclosed element
Current WF2 defines a way to determinate the default submit button[1].
While it is quite useful it would be even more useful if you could
decide which is the default submit button in WF2 compliant UAs:
# woo_ who really programs like that though.. "well, the first button
# is ALWAYS going to
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
If every conformance checker has to implement their own, there's more
chance they some of them will make mistakes, and each end up with
differing DOCTYPES. If that happens, then chances are each validator
would give differing results, which is even more confusing and would
Jim Ley wrote:
Would a version parameter not be more appropriate, simpler, less
confusing to users, easier to parse, easier to understand, doesn't
confuse users into thinking that it's really an application of SGML.
Doesn't cause problems for legacy user agents like the HTML Validator
etc. etc.
Ac
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
This doesn't stop conformance checker implements from writing DTDs of
their own and then placing them in their SGML catalog so that the
HTML5 DOCTYPE triggers that DTD, though. The point is that different
conformance checker vendors should be able to w
Ian Hickson wrote:
I am very reluctant to put a particular DTD in the DOCTYPE, though. Given
that DTDs are highly inadequate for catching errors, it feels very wrong
to me to be giving a particulr DTD any kind of legitimacy at that level.
A DTD or schema in the spec would be redundant anyway, sin
On Apr 7, 2005 12:04 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > You should know the purpose I guess. (Standards mode.) I agree that it
> > should be documentated.
>
> Actually come to think of it there is also a second purpose, namely,
> telling c
On Apr 7, 2005 12:03 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They trigger standards mode in modern browsers. The
> current one for WHATWG specs is:
Will the spec explain this some more, in particular could you document
what "standards mode" is, and exactly how user agents should use this
doc
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > Can you also explain the point of the > the specs require at the top of documents? What are they doing,
> > please remove them, they serve no purpose whatsoever. Or if they do
> > serve a purpose, document what the purpose is.
>
> You shou
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
> >
> > In my world that is solved by no longer claiming that HTML is an SGML
> > application.
>
> So please state that clearly in the specification.
Yes, patience boy. All in due course. Like I said earlier in this thread,
I haven't gotten that far in the ed
Jim Ley wrote:
Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: "use UTF-8"?
(Which would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for
mathematical symbols it might be a pain to enter them.)
In my world that is solved by no longer claiming that HTML is an
SGML application.
So please state
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> And how does the XML part of your world feel about [not having a DTD
> meaning they can't use entities]? (I like the idea for HTML.)
The current draft says that there is no particular DTD for XHTML5. It
doesn't stop anyone from using one if they
On Apr 7, 2005 11:51 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: "use UTF-8"? (Which
> > would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for mathematical
> > symbols it might be a pain to
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: "use UTF-8"?
(Which would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for
mathematical symbols it might be a pain to enter them.)
In my world that is solved by no longer claiming
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: "use UTF-8"? (Which
> would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for mathematical
> symbols it might be a pain to enter them.)
In my world that is solved by no longer claiming that HTM
Ian Hickson wrote:
This doesn't stop conformance checker implements from writing DTDs of
their own and then placing them in their SGML catalog so that the HTML5
DOCTYPE triggers that DTD, though. The point is that different conformance
checker vendors should be able to write their own DTD for HT
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> >
> > A conformance checker that doesn't check for all the machine-checkable
> > things is not compliant, just like a browser that doesn't support
> > everything in the spec is not compliant.
>
> Fair enough, but is the spec going to specify exactly whi
On Apr 7, 2005 10:24 AM, Olav Junker Kjær <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > Firstly I think the conclusions that the audience for WHAT-WG stuff
> > doesn't understand the limitations of the validator is sustainable -
> > where's the evidence?
>
> People putting small icons on their p
Jim Ley wrote:
Firstly I think the conclusions that the audience for WHAT-WG stuff
doesn't understand the limitations of the validator is sustainable -
where's the evidence?
People putting small icons on their pages to indicate that the page is
valid. Also, lots of articles on the web about jumping
Ian Hickson wrote:
One thing that XHTML2 does which makes a lot of sense to me is allow
nesting of certain elements within elements, as in:
For this recipe you need
an egg,
flour, and
butter.
Mix it all together and so forth.
The problem is that you mix i
42 matches
Mail list logo
