Ian Hickson wrote:
So would you like me to remove the suggestion?
Frankly, I'm not sure. I guess there's no real harm leaving it there
-Boris
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
>
> That (with the hyphens in dates and colons in times) is actually not the
> basic, but the extended format. I have only ever read the 2000 version,
> so please CMIIW, but AFAIK the 2004 edition basically removes many of
> the truncated/implied and
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ISO 8601:1988 and ISO 8601:2000 have been withdrawn and replaced with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
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > It's only relevant for numbers. For dates, there is no risk of losing
> > accuracy (well, unless you have sub-second resolution, which is unlikely).
>
> Then the problem is that given the range of possible expressions any
> give
Ian Hickson wrote:
It's only relevant for numbers. For dates, there is no risk of losing
accuracy (well, unless you have sub-second resolution, which is unlikely).
Then the problem is that given the range of possible expressions any given
number could have it's very difficult to compare them a
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > I guess my point is that for number types or step this would be a very
> > > difficult to follow suggestion and that attempts to follow it are likely
> > > to be pretty buggy...
> >
> > I guess we could remove the suggestion. Wou
Ian Hickson wrote:
I guess my point is that for number types or step this would be a very
difficult to follow suggestion and that attempts to follow it are likely
to be pretty buggy...
I guess we could remove the suggestion. Would you prefer that?
It might make more sense to make it clearer
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> 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 ISO 8601:1988 and ISO 8601:2000 have been withdrawn and replaced with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), th
As always, the updated spec is on the site at the usual URI.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> The submission behavior of various browsers I've tested is the
> following: [...]
>
> The point is, a number of sites that have forms
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
ISO8601 claims to be a "Withdrawn standard". Is this an issue?
What is it withdrawn in favour of? Do you know?
I just did a google search and found some references [1] stating that
ISO 8601:1988 and ISO 8601:2000 have been withdr
Ian Hickson wrote:
The section on implicit submission does not talk about firing click events,
if any, on the submit button. IE does this in some cases (though not
others), and web sites depend on them being fired when IE does fire
them
Can you elaborate?
The submission behavior of vario
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>...
> Controls with no default value specified are supposed to have no value
> selected. At the same time, the widget types recommended for
> rendering the control (eg the clock recommended for time) do not lend
> themselves well to having no value selected. They lend themse
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> It's not clear what happens in XHTML when a non-empty form is placed in
> the head. That is, is emptyness a conformance requirement for authors
> or UAs, and what are UAs expected to do about it?
Already defined in section 2.18. It seems clear that
2.3:
It's not clear what happens in XHTML when a non-empty form is placed in the
head. That is, is emptyness a conformance requirement for authors or UAs, and
what are UAs expected to do about it?
It's not clear what should happen if the constraint in the paragraph starting
with "The children o
14 matches
Mail list logo
