There are many cases where we want to sort child nodes of a DOM node.
Many times it is TR nodes of a TBODY
Right now user writes javascript code to achive that.
Dont you think it is better if there was built DOM method for each node.
Additionally the method will have a sort function parameter to
Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com, 2010-06-03 16:08 -0700:
On 6/3/10, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Garrett Smith wrote:
I have noticed over the last year or so, the error fixBrokenLink
often popping up.
fixBrokenLink is not defined.
I seem to recall
Couldn't SCTP/DCCP (or a variant) over UDP (for NAT compatibility) work?
They seem both seem to be session oriented while loosening the other
restrictions of TCP,
On 4 June 2010 00:18, Philip Taylor
excors+wha...@gmail.comexcors%2bwha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Erik
The HTML5 spec should define how to mark up the main content on a page
(even if the answer is by omission). This is something that many
authors ask about, the latest example being today's thread on the help
mailing list:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2010-June/000561.html
On May 26, 2010, at 20:10, Aaron Boodman wrote:
This isn't really the point of this mail, but I just want to point out
that there are more differences between wgt and crx than the format of
the manifest file. The most important is that the identify of a crx
file is a public key, and all crx
I am the one posting the question on the help list. To me, the lack of html5
definition of main content, ie body copy in paper publishing, is a big
mistake. Imagine the amount of sites where everything else includes a lot
of unimportant extra, or peripheral, content. Content which is not
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:
I am the one posting the question on the help list. To me, the lack of
html5 definition of main content, ie body copy in paper publishing, is
a big mistake. Imagine the amount of sites where everything else
includes a lot of unimportant
If i view the html-web as it is now, inside body there are so much
irrelevant content (where else to put it?). In order for body to be the
main content, there has to be tags for everything else. This will be very
hard for authors to implement (I am talking real world, amateur,
do-it-yourself,
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:05 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:
If i view the html-web as it is now, inside body there are so much
irrelevant content (where else to put it?). In order for body to be
the main content, there has to be tags for everything else. This will
be very hard for authors to
Some websites are very crowded. I have no particular example. Blogs and
easily accessible CMS's, people trying to make a buck from excessive
advertising on their site, people cramming a lot of info/screen unit.
Companies too, old media: http://www.aftonbladet.se/ (major Swedish paper,
watch your
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 18:03 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:
Some websites are very crowded. I have no particular example. Blogs
and easily accessible CMS's, people trying to make a buck from
excessive advertising on their site, people cramming a lot of
info/screen unit. Companies too, old media:
I am not advocating ad-tags. The idea of globally structuring content on the
web is very appealing, it would make it easier for a lot of things and a lot
of people. Let's do it!
...but I can't see it happening where body would be main content + ads +
anything there is not a sensible tag for +
The purpose of all the new tags, is so the machine can figure out what is NOT
main content, and assume everything else is. With proper use of sectioning and
aside as well as header and footers this can be mostly achieved today.
On 4/06/2010, at 5:39 PM, Daniel Persson wrote:
I am not
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Daniel Persson
danielperssondel...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not advocating ad-tags. The idea of globally structuring content on the
web is very appealing, it would make it easier for a lot of things and a lot
of people. Let's do it!
...but I can't see it
Hi,
I wonder if this is the correct place to post this but I
cannot find any resources online as canvas is so new.
After grabbing some image data from a canvas with the
getImageData call, I cannot find a way to put the image data onto a canvas
scaled down.
But wouldn't we create a situation where the main content tag is misused and
essentially then we'd recreate the situation with body?
Best,
Grant
On Jun 4, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Daniel Persson wrote:
I am not advocating ad-tags. The idea of globally structuring content on the
web is very
On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Rob Evans wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if this is the correct place to post this but I
cannot find any resources online as canvas is so new.
Canvas isn't new -- it's at least 4 or 5 years old, and has been in the html5
spec for at least 2 or 3 of those
1: My bad.
2: Fair enough.
3: Thanks, I had totally skipped the extra parameters available on the
drawImage function... oops. I think I'll blog it so anyone else who
skim-reads the MDC will find my mistake on google when they search!
From: Oliver Hunt [mailto:oli...@apple.com]
Sent: 04 June
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
After googling around a bit, I was unable to find a signed .crx file for
analysis. (I took apart 3 .crx files and gave up.) Is the signing mechanism
documented somewhere? .wgt reinvents the .jar signing wheel by the basic
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On May 26, 2010, at 20:10, Aaron Boodman wrote:
This isn't really the point of this mail, but I just want to point out
that there are more differences between wgt and crx than the format of
the manifest file. The most
On 2010-06-04 18:39, Daniel Persson wrote:
I am not advocating ad-tags. The idea of globally structuring content
on the web is very appealing, it would make it easier for a lot of
things and a lot of people. Let's do it!
...but I can't see it happening where body would be main content +
ads +
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Roger Hågensen resca...@emsai.net wrote:
On 2010-06-04 18:39, Daniel Persson wrote:
I am not advocating ad-tags. The idea of globally structuring content on the
web is very appealing, it would make it easier for a lot of things and a lot
of people. Let's do
On 2010-06-04 22:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Roger Hågensenresca...@emsai.net wrote:
...
As you can see the aside is outside the body, all latest browsers seem to
handle this pretty fine.
http://validator.w3.org/ on the other hand gives the error Line 12, Column
LinkedIn
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- no body
no body
Student at Universidad de Montevideo
Uruguay
Confirm that you know no body
https://www.linkedin.com/e/isd/1361348824/0ScZquf7/
--
(c) 2010, LinkedIn Corporation
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Roger Hågensen resca...@emsai.net wrote:
On 2010-06-04 22:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Roger Hågensenresca...@emsai.net
wrote:
...
As you can see the aside is outside the body, all latest browsers seem to
handle this pretty
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 13:28 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Roger Hågensen resca...@emsai.net wrote:
On 2010-06-04 22:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Roger Hågensenresca...@emsai.net
wrote:
...
As you can see the aside is
On 2010-06-04 resca...@emsai.net wrote:
On 2010-06-04 22:03, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
No browser depends on you using thebody element explicitly. It's
perfectly fine to write your document like this:
!doctype html
titleTest/title
style
aside {border:1px solid #bf;white-space:nowrap;}
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/10, TAMURA, Kent tk...@chromium.org wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#constraint-validation
If one of the controls is not being
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
No browser depends on you using the body element explicitly. It's
perfectly fine to write your document like this:
!doctype html
titleTest/title
style
aside {border:1px solid #bf;white-space:nowrap;}
/style
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 14:47 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 13:28 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
All browsers that you could possibly care about (any FF, Safari,
Chrome, Opera, or IE produced
I have different behavior in browsers with the checked state of a checkbox
input element.
I have filed a ticket in Webkit and I am looking after some
advice/suggestion about the correct behavior expected from this HTML:
label
input type=checkbox
a href=#Enable/a
/label
It seems
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I have different behavior in browsers with the checked state of a checkbox
input element.
I have filed a ticket in Webkit and I am looking after some
advice/suggestion about the correct behavior expected from this
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 15:21 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I have different behavior in browsers with the checked state of a checkbox
input element.
I have filed a ticket in Webkit and I am looking after some
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 15:21 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Diego Perini diego.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I have different behavior in browsers with the checked state of a checkbox
input
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:19 AM, James May wha...@fowlsmurf.net wrote:
Couldn't SCTP/DCCP (or a variant) over UDP (for NAT compatibility) work?
No, DCCP is much newer than most NAT hardware in operation.
When a client user agent is sending UDP, client-initiated TCP streams
such as HTTP or HTTPS
35 matches
Mail list logo
