On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:36:00 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Ralph Giles gi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 05/10/11 04:36 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If the files don't work in VTT in any major implementation, then
probably
not many. It's
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:07:17 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
I did some research on authoring errors in SRT timestamps to inform
whether
WebVTT parsing of timestamps should be changed.
Our
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:46:15 +0200, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Ralph Giles gi...@mozilla.com wrote:
A point Philip Jägenstedt has made is that it's sufficiently tedious to
verify correct subtitle playback that authors are unlikely to do so with
any
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
If the CORS-check did not succeed on img
src=http://crossorigin.example.net crossorigin, this should happen
according to spec:
Discard all fetched data and prevent any tasks from the fetch algorithm
from being queued.
This is all I meant as well. Of course we should all implement the parser as
spec'd. My comments were with respect to amending the spec to be more forgiving
of common errors.
-r
Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:36:00 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:05:29 +0200, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The reason it's implemented like that is because I didn't add any new
security checks. I just expanded the canvas taint-checking code to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:05:29 +0200, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The reason it's implemented like that is because I didn't add any new
security checks. I just expanded the canvas taint-checking code to
understand that a CORS-approved image could pass.
w.r.t. to blocking the whole
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:05:29 +0200, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The reason it's implemented like that is because I didn't add any new
security checks. I just expanded the canvas taint-checking code to
understand that a CORS-approved image could pass.
Ok, so not really intended then.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:05:29 +0200, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The reason it's implemented like that is because I didn't add any new
security checks. I just expanded the canvas taint-checking code to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:11:54 +0200, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
If they actually want a fallback, they can easily just reload the
picture
without crossorigin, and they will probably get the cached image
directly
from the browser (because it already has it, only won't show it).
On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we
fail fast and hard
In some cases, yes. It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously.
A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing
something, silently implementing
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:37:22 -, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Simon Pieters wrote:
video and audio should have controls= and autoplay=
The spec allows browsers to do that (in fact it explicitly calls out
autoplay=), but do we really want to require one or the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:37:22 -, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Simon Pieters wrote:
video and audio should have controls= and autoplay=
The spec allows browsers to do that (in fact it explicitly calls out
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:56:23 -, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The context here is how browsers display videos when you just navigate to
a video file directly. Much as with navigating to images, where the spec
says to use img but doesn't require or disallow extra features, such as
the zoom
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:05:29 +0200, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
The reason it's implemented like that is because I didn't add any new
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we
fail fast and hard
In some cases, yes. It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously.
A meta-issue: if you disagree
On 10/6/11 5:54 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing
something, silently implementing something else seems strictly worse than
raising a spec issue (and still implementing
Hello all,
We just came up with an idea that we think would be a worthy addition to the
HTML 5 spec. Being new to the contribution process I hope this is the
appropriate venue to vet this idea.
We have been using a script called html2canvas that utilizes the CANVAS tag to
render screen
I'm trying to implement the HTML parser's adoption agency algorithm and
am puzzled by this step:
Let a bookmark note the position of the formatting element in the list
of active formatting elements
19 matches
Mail list logo
