Re: [whatwg] text/html conformance checkers and comments

Lachlan Hunt: As useless as the first one may be, Well, it's shorter than "", i.e. usable for source code emphasis.

Re: [whatwg] attribute value normalization

Anne van Kesteren: It appears that no browser has implemented the 'may' from HTML4 Confusingly (at least) Firefox 1.04 does trim tabulators and newlines, but not spaces, and only in HTML mode, not in XML mode.

Re: [whatwg] attribute value normalization

Anne van Kesteren: It should basically not happen at all. It appears that no browser has implemented the 'may' from HTML4 That's the logic of tagsoup parsers, i.e. their inconsistency regarding authoring sloppiness. If it had been "should not", they would probably do it. ;) Did you also try

Re: [whatwg] WA1: attribute requirements

Ian Hickson: On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote: This list item will be replaced by a script. is not invalid. It's also wrong, since that isn't really a list item. I couldn't think of a concrete example, where I could have filled in something more appropriate.

Re: [whatwg] WA1: attribute requirements

Ian Hickson: The difficulty is in walking the fine line between useful and over-constrained. For example, the fact that is invalid in HTML4 is a real problem. Well, This list item will be replaced by a script. is not invalid. An empty list doesn't make any sense otherwise, IMHO, so it's

[whatwg] Suggesting a 'transpose' Attribute for Tables

set, a table would be rendered column-progressive despite 'tr' meaning "table row"; it includes the row-groups ('thead', 'tfoot' and 'tbody'). Actually I am not sure whether it is not too presentational and thus would better be done in CSS. Christoph Päper

Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Comments on sections 2.3 -- 2.5

Lachlan Hunt: I just did a google search and found some references [1] stating that ISO 8601:1988 and ISO 8601:2000 have been withdrawn and replaced with ISO 8601:2004. I'm not sure what the differences are (I haven't read through the whole article yet), though it looks like the basic date fo

Re: [whatwg] Re: About XHTML 2.0

Matthew Raymond: Christoph Päper wrote: If you're going to quote someone, don't remove portions of the quote without indicating you have done so. Please, I used "(...)" (because we were discussing semantics not CSS capabilities) and the rest is just obviously shorten

Re: [whatwg] Re: About XHTML 2.0

Matthew Raymond: Christoph Päper wrote: The (as well as ) does indeed have semantic meaning in that it can group things. However, in the case of replacing , I don't see how this semantic information can actually be used to benefit the user. It's certainly useless on modern bro

Re: [whatwg] Re: About XHTML 2.0

Sorry for the late reply, I had to read the whole thread in www-html first and was away for a few days. Ian Hickson: On Mon, 23 May 2005, Christoph Päper wrote: Ian Hickson: ... ... ...has no semantics apart from delineating one section. Remember that class="" and are m

Re: [whatwg] Re: About XHTML 2.0

Ian Hickson schrieb: I read a lot of fiction books and when I come across a "* * *" it reads to me like a paragraph, saying "Meanwhile, in a different part of the universe:"; it doesn't read as "end section. new section:". ... ... ... ... ... Works h

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: [whatwg] [html5] 2.6.1. The a element

*Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*: So what does an element with no href="" represent? Nothing? Or I guess we could make the href="" attribute required. I frequently use and advice to do navigation lists like this: Home ... Current page ... Contact (I use 'map', because

Re: [whatwg] [html5] DI element

*Anne van Kesteren* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The advantage of DI is that it allows grouping of definitions ACK and therefore takes away the importance of element order. So you want to put 'dt' after 'dd'? Seems strange to me. From a structural point of view it is very difficult for current DL element