On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:29:17 +0200, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net
wrote:
On 8 sie 2012, at 12:57, Florian Rivoal flori...@opera.com wrote:
Is there a good reason to believe that * will be something other than
a
power of two?
That is, could we just optimize the *x syntax away and
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:48 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 08/07/2012 07:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I don't mind supporting
On 10 Aug 2012, at 09:54, Florian Rivoal wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:29:17 +0200, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net
wrote:
On 8 sie 2012, at 12:57, Florian Rivoal flori...@opera.com wrote:
Is there a good reason to believe that * will be something other than a
power of two?
I wasn't
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:54:10 +0200, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net
wrote:
One stylesheet can be easily reused for pixel-perfect 1x/2x layout,
but pixel-perfect 1.5x requires its own sizes incompatible with 1x/2x.
Apart from it possibly being a self-fulfilling prophecy – isn't this
On 9 August 2012 17:01, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Andy Davies dajdav...@gmail.com wrote:
Would also like to see if there's a way of using srcset to hint to the UA
that it can skip the image under low throughput conditions e.g. GPRS.
Same would
On Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:53 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The only reason there's a MIME type at all (rather than just using
JSON's directly) was to enable filtering of copy-and-paste and
drag-and-drop payloads; would JSON-LD enable that also?
Sure, I see no reason why not.
Could
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
On Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:53 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The only reason there's a MIME type at all (rather than just using
JSON's directly) was to enable filtering of copy-and-paste and
drag-and-drop payloads; would JSON-LD enable
My understanding of the general philosophy of HTML5 on the matter of
malformed HTML is that it's better to define specific rules concerning
breakage rather than overly strict rules about how to do it right in the
first place but this is really starting to create pain-points in
development.
Modern
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Erik Reppen erik.rep...@gmail.com wrote:
My understanding of the general philosophy of HTML5 on the matter of
malformed HTML is that it's better to define specific rules concerning
breakage rather than overly strict rules about how to do it right in the
first
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski
jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com wrote:
On W3C AudioWG we're currently discussing the possibility of having web
workers that run in a priority/RT thread. This would be highly useful for
example to keep audio from glitching even under high CPU
This confuses me. Why does it matter that other documents wouldn't work if
you changed the parsing rules they were defined with to stricter versions?
As far as backwards compatibility, if a strict-defined set of HTML would
also work in a less strict context, what could it possibly matter? It's
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Erik Reppen erik.rep...@gmail.com wrote:
This confuses me. Why does it matter that other documents wouldn't work if
you changed the parsing rules they were defined with to stricter versions?
As far as backwards compatibility, if a strict-defined set of HTML
Sorry if this double-posted but I think I forgot to CC the list.
Browser vendor politics I can understand but if we're going to talk about
what history shows about people like myself suggesting features we can't
actually support I'd like to see some studies that contradict the
experiences I've
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Erik Reppen erik.rep...@gmail.com wrote:
Browser vendor politics I can understand but if we're going to talk about
what history shows about people like myself suggesting features we can't
actually support I'd like to see some studies that contradict the
Le 10/08/2012 20:06, Erik Reppen a écrit :
Sorry if this double-posted but I think I forgot to CC the list.
Browser vendor politics I can understand but if we're going to talk about
what history shows about people like myself suggesting features we can't
actually support I'd like to see some
Thanks Hugh. I had mistakenly been thinking of XHTML5 as something that
never happened rather than merely HTML5 served as XML which hadn't really
occurred to me as being a viable option. I look forward to messing with
this. This is precisely what I wanted to be able to do.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at
(12/08/11 8:41), Erik Reppen wrote:
Thanks Hugh. I had mistakenly been thinking of XHTML5 as something that
never happened rather than merely HTML5 served as XML which hadn't really
occurred to me as being a viable option. I look forward to messing with
this. This is precisely what I wanted to
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:48 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 08/07/2012 07:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I don't mind supporting
18 matches
Mail list logo
