I took a brief look at the WF 2.0 document yesterday and found some
serious misconceptions and examples of programming by coincidence.
These reflect very poorly on html5.
The errors can be found on the link:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#select-check-default
Doc Bugs:
1)
Examples should work.
Citation from:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#outlines
The following JavaScript function shows how the tree walk could be
implemented. The root argument is the root of the tree to
On 30 Jul 2008, at 4:49 am, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
I asked for the resurrection of HTML+'s imagefallback/image
element
last month. The reasons I cited were exactly the same as the reasons
being given now in favour of the video element, however I was
And this particular example should be recursive. Unfolding inherently
recursive procedures with an explicit stack, perhaps to construct an
enumerator or to simulate a coroutine, is a technical detail that does not
belong here.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He was the vendor of the prototype implementation so it was impossible to
stop him although TBL did his best.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Shanks
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:17 AM
To: Ian Hickson
Cc: WHAT Working
Form attribute names should take precedence over form control names. There
is no ambiguity. Both mechanisms belong to Netscape DOM and are deprecated.
Form property names should take precedence over both. I do not see much
value in removing support for legacy code altogether; it looks a bit
The documents belonging to the container should not be available directly
from the server, except when they are served via a server extension that
goes to the container to get them. This effect should be easy to achieve on
the server side.
Chris
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Russell Leggett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
That is a performance killer.
I don't think it is as much of a performance killer as you say it is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard connection limit is two.
The standard connection limit is 6, not 2, as of
The element you are describing is effectively a progress bar control. It is
still not present in HTML; however, it can be emulated using an OUTPUT
control with layout or with invisible text and a custom background:
SPAN STYLE=COLOR: RED; BACKGROUND: RED; BORDER: THIN SOLID BLACK
***/SPAN
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Garrett Smith wrote:
Citation from:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#outlines
The following JavaScript function shows how the tree walk could be
implemented. [...]
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
And this particular example should be recursive. Unfolding inherently
recursive procedures with an explicit stack, perhaps to construct an
enumerator or to simulate a coroutine, is a technical detail that does
not belong here.
The point of
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
To continue this:
The video and audio elements are being introduced because they have DOM APIs
that exceed that of object, and we don't want to overload the general
element with features specific to certain kinds of media. By analogy, images
could
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Ernest Cline wrote:
The range of valid datetime strings is a subset of those specified by
ISO 8601. Most of the unused formats have been rejected on the grounds
of simplicity of parsing, but a format (I think added in ISO 8601:2004,
but it may have been earlier)
Every now and then, the issue of a global href= attribute for all
elements comes up. There are many valid use cases for this, like being
able to make all cells in a table row act like a link, or making a banner
ad act like a single block of a link.
Unfortunately, I've been told over and over
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:50:18 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every now and then, the issue of a global href= attribute for all
elements comes up. There are many valid use cases for this, like being
able to make all cells in a table row act like a link, or making a banner
ad act like
Simon Pieters wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:50:18 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every now and then, the issue of a global href= attribute for all
elements comes up. There are many valid use cases for this, like being
able to make all cells in a table row act like a link, or
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:29:47 +0200, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think tableatr also causes problems;
Indeed.
being able to link whole table rows seems like one of the major use
cases for this proposal.
I don't know how to do that short of using script.
Perhaps HTMLElement
The only thing archives get you IMO is difficulty with caching algorithms,
annoyances rewriting URLs, potentially blocked parsing, and possibly
inefficient use of network bandwidth due to reduced parallelization.
I don't see any reason that parsing would need to be blocked any more than
it
Kristof Zelechovski writes:
The element you are describing is effectively a progress bar control.
It is still not present in HTML
HTML 5 introduces progress for that:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level.html#the-progress
Smylers
Nicholas Shanks writes:
On 30 Jul 2008, at 4:49 am, Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't see how this is a benefit over img.
In order of importance to me:
1. It's spelt correctly.
3. It's spelt correctly.
Having both img and image elements in HTML doing different things
would be confusing. Many
Ian Hickson writes:
... global href= attribute for all elements ... Unfortunately, I've
been told over and over by implementers that a global href= is a bad
idea
Noted.
However:
div class=ad
onclick=this.getElementsByTagName('a')[0].click()
article class=teaser
On 30 Jul 2008, at 08:17, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
So again, I ask for an image element to replace img. Benefits
include:
- As video would cater for video/* MIME types, image would
cater for
image/*
I don't see how this is a benefit over img.
In order of importance to me:
1. It's spelt
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Form attribute names should take precedence over form control names. There
is no ambiguity.
Both mechanisms belong to Netscape DOM and are deprecated.
Form property names should take precedence over both. I do not
What about an alternative attribute like navigate instead of href. It
would not carry the full weight of the anchor tag, but would handle the 90%
use case. It would not allow for the same options as the a tag, and the a
tag would continue to work the same way that it has been.
On Wed, Jul 30,
At 21:45 -0700 29/07/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Dave Singer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching is on a full URL basis, of course. Once that is decided,
then yes, I think that pre-cached items for a given URL are in the
general cache
Please explain why you consider concatenating JavaScript sources dirty. You
can have a library of all JavaScript definitions relevant to your site in
one source file and I am not sure what is wrong with it, except that a
library should consist of books, but that concept was already broken long
By the current spec, the Anchor element is phrasing content, which is a
special case of flow content. Did you mean transparent content instead?
EC! I cannot see any inline content in HTML5, at least not in 3.4.1 where
content models are defined.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson
I feel uneasy about this Gregorian bias in dates, although I use Gregorian
calendar myself. It seems Gregorian dates do not require specifying the
datetime attribute but all other dates do (like Arabic lunar, Jewish, Thai,
Ethiopic, whatever). It would be much better if the algorithm were
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Henri Sivonen wrote:
How do proleptic Gregorian dates before the Common Era fit into any of
the use cases that states are used for in HTML?
Insertion and deletion dates are contemporary. Date form widgets are
meant for airline and hotel reservations
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Simon Pieters wrote:
There are also alternative suggestions, like making a contain any
element. Unfortunately, none of these end up working (e.g. for this
proposal, ap/a would create an unexpected DOM -- we'd have to
make /p end tags not optional when the next
I did some searching through the archives, but didn't find anything at all
that talked about this. Out of curiousity, was there a reason that datetime
doesn't store/send it's value as a unix timestamp? True, the standard
unixtime unit is insufficient for representing a useful range of dates, but
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
I did some searching through the archives, but didn't find anything at all
that talked about this. Out of curiousity, was there a reason that datetime
doesn't store/send it's value as a unix timestamp?
IIRC, one reason is or better graceful degradation in legacy user
[Warning: begin tirade, diatribe, fulmination, harangue, jeremiad, and/or
philippic]
At the very least, ensure that the range of times (dates, durations, intervals
and times-of-day) and the granularity are well and rigorously specified.
Ensure, also, that there is a Javascript mechanism to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Geoff Pack wrote:
Why does the HTML5 spec say The div element represents nothing at all?
[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-div]
Div clearly stands for 'division', as was specified in the HTML 3.2
spec: DIV elements can be used to structure HTML
(Not all of this e-mail is covered in this reply. It's possible that I
will reply to the same points in this e-mail multiple times, for which I
apologise in advance.)
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I'm not sure what the section/ element offers over the div/
element. I
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
As there is also another thread going on about section/, I don't want
to repeat all of my comments here, but suffice to say that I don't see
why I'd ever use section/ when I get implicit sections by using hn/
elements. Writers are used to
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
From: Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dnia 01-03-2008, So o godzinie 19:36 -0800, Nicholas C. Zakas pisze:
Perhaps it would better be named callout/?
Aside is customary in dialogue annotations, I have never seen any
callout.
Call it
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
From: Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dnia 01-03-2008, So o godzinie 19:36 -0800, Nicholas C. Zakas pisze:
Perhaps it would better be named callout/?
Aside is customary in dialogue annotations, I have never
On Sat, 31 May 2008, David Latapie wrote:
Ian wrote:
| address
| nameJohn Hopkins/namebr
| Phone: (359) 555-1701
| /address
Notwithstanding what I consider misuse of br
[...] Indeed, I do not see any semantic value in br at all. As for
poetry and lyrics (a common example
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
I was trying to imaging how it would be to build a site, and I realized
that, in the case of site with 2 nav bars (typically 2 sidebars) there's
not a way to specify which is the main sidebar and which is
accessory... What do you think about
Over the years a number of e-mails have been sent to the list about
signatures and other public key cryptography topics, most of which are
quoted below.
For a number of reasons, not least of which my lack of expertise in the
area, the size of the HTML5 spec today, and the low level of demand
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I understand the concept of the dialog/ element but it's named
completely wrong. The point is to markup a conversation between two or
more parties. The problem is that the word dialog, when in used in
user interfaces, refers to small
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Garrett Smith wrote:
var s = ;
test(document,
function (a) { s += enter + a + \n; },
function (a) { s += exit + a + \n; });
s
The output was what I expected. There were no
figure was changed some time back to allow any content and to allow the
legend to be omitted. At the time this was done as part of a content model
overhaul and so I forgot to respond to some of the figure feedback. (I
haven't quoted most of the feedback asking for this below, since many of
44 matches
Mail list logo
