[whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues

Hi, In the conformance requirements for Web Forms 2 [1], it states: | This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the | HTML4, ... Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those | specifications to claim compliance with this one. Because it says "must implement

Re: [whatwg] elements containing other block-level elements

On Apr 13, 2005, at 11:03, Jim Ley wrote: On 4/12/05, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 12, 2005, at 13:02, Matthew Thomas wrote: Writing software that is guaranteed to emit well-formed XML is not particularly hard. That

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

Ian Hickson wrote: Another criteria is "could the presentation be changed without losing its meaning?". For example, with clearly you can change the presentation without losing the fact that it is emphasis: whether it is bigger or italics doesn't make much difference. But with I don't think yo

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

*Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*: Mlle x2 I'm not sure how to deal with the chemistry case. We don't really have an element for anything like chemical formulas. Stretching its semantics really far, one could use 'code' for formulas¹ and 'abbr' for isotopes etc. ¹ The molecular sequencers ("r

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote: > > > > There's no use case for this. It just has to be defined so that we get > > interoperable behaviour, otherwise every UA will end up doing > > something different. > > Yes, I understand your reluctance to have unspecified behavior. I think > it

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

Generally, I think the short usage notes improves the spec a lot. Suddely the javascript: date: and file: schemes make sense to me! > There's no use case for this. It just has to be defined so that we get > interoperable behaviour, otherwise every UA will end up doing > something different. Yes,

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote: > > Some feature in WF2 for which the use cases are not immediately obvious: > > - the output element and the readonly attribute. Its not obvious why we > need both, and when you should use which. I have added a usage note in the section to help ans

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

Dean Jackson wrote: On 13 Apr 2005, at 19:31, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote: Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a document. All of them. That's never going to happen, just l

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote: > > > > That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML working group has > > never published a document with use cases for all their features. > > Ditto the SVG group, > > The SVG group has published requirements documents for its features. So > has

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On 13 Apr 2005, at 19:31, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote: Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a document. All of them. That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML working

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, dolphinling wrote: > > "green" is just as meaningful as "subscript"--they're both purely > presentational, and we as people have attached meanings to certain > presentations. The semantics of "subscript" are completely different > from the semantics of "there are two of the

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, James Graham wrote: > Because that happens to be a convenient umbrella for specific > constructions in documents that need to be treated in a particular way > by UAs. Indeed I would be more than happy if Web Apps "clarified" the > situation with and so that purely presenta

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > > I cannot agree. We should not mix typographical presentation for > presentation sake and typographical presentation for semantic reason. > While it may be not a big deal in chemistry, it is not so in math. This may be a good way of putting it in

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C

Finally, just by looking at the markup of the calculator example, I don't see WF2 being any less powerful or elegant Yeah, I agree, and I didn't mean to slam WF2 which I think is a very fine spec. I was just afraid that W3C would disregard the "killer features" of WF2 which is backwards-compatibili

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

(I hope y'all don't mind me replying to all your e-mails out of order. I'm basically going down the spec one element at a time and when I come across one that someone has discussed in the past, I reply to those e-mails.) On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Matthew Thomas wrote: > On 7 Jan, 2005, at 5:58 AM, Ia

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

Ian Hickson wrote: Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a document. Some feature in WF2 for which the use cases are not immediately obvious: - the output element and the readonly attribute. Its not obvious

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote: > > > > Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use > > cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a > > document. > > All of them. That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML working group has never pub

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On 13 Apr 2005, at 18:26, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote: Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list [the use cases]. Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a d

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote: > > Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list > [the use cases]. Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a document. Thanks! -- Ian Hickson

Re: Call four comments 4 is out (Was: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 submission to W3C)

On 4/12/05, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. Providing comprehensive use cases and requirements. This doesn't really > belong in a spec, so I don't think we should change the spec to include > them. Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list them. I'm sure

Re: [whatwg] elements containing other block-level elements

On 4/12/05, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2005, at 13:02, Matthew Thomas wrote: > > > > > Writing software that is guaranteed to emit well-formed XML is not > particularly hard. That depends on your definit