Re: [whatwg] Confusion about node1.replace(node2)

* Glen Huang wrote: >When someone says A replace B, I get the impression that B is no longer >in effect and A is the new one. So when I do `node1.replace(node2)`, I >can’t help but feel node2 is replaced with node1, which is the opposite >of what the spec specifies. To illustrate this, imagine

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Specify SHA512 hash of JavaScript files in

* Some Developer wrote: >Currently most people store their JavaScript code on a CDN of some sort. >This often involves uploading their JavaScript files to a server hosted and >run by a third party which means the control and security of the server is >out of the hands of the website owner. If the C

Re: [whatwg] Mailing List Archive Link

* Anselm Hannemann wrote: >In the mails from w3c there is a header tag with the reference to the >archived version but I couldn’t find one here. Some http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Stable+URLs are trying to add such a feature to mailman, which this list uses, but so far there is nothing easily

Re: [whatwg] The src-N proposal

* Bruno Racineux wrote: >Maybe Google should announce they'll start penalizing sites who do not >gzip, to change that. Either a press release on April 1st, just as an >educational scare tactic. Or a actual Webmaster Tools notification for >more awareness of non-gzipped site, or both :) Google have

Re: [whatwg] responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> These examples... do not look good. >> >> I presume you mean that they don't look good in the

Re: [whatwg] CanvasRenderingContext2D with addPath, currentPath

* Robert O'Callahan wrote: >On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Robert O'Callahan >> wrote: >>> Does this mean that ctx.currentPath != ctx.currentPath? >> >> Yes >> >>> That's bad! >> >> Why would it be bad (apart from being different)? > >It me

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Adding methods like getElementById and getElementsByTagName to DocumentFragments

* Boris Zbarsky wrote: >If the goal is to get browsers to implement, how is it more valuable? >Browser vendors ignore W3C test suites to an even greater extent than >they ignore bug reports. In particular, I don't believe browser vendors >typically run W3C test suites en masse regularly, wherea

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Adding methods like getElementById and getElementsByTagName to DocumentFragments

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >I also filed some browser bugs just in case people are not paying >attention here: > >* https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=933193 >* http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=313655 >* https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123565 > >Should really hav

Re: [whatwg] Mixed content WebSockets: use subprotocols!

* Nicholas Wilson wrote: >Currently, Firefox blocks "ws://" connections from HTTPS pages, while >Chrome doesn't. Ultimately, this needs to be resolved somehow. There >are legitimate uses of mixed-content WebSocket connections - for >example, a simple VNC or SSH client in the browser. It is very har

Re: [whatwg] API to delay the document load event (continued)

* James Burke wrote: >I just joined the mailing list, so I apologize for not continuing the >existing thread started here: > >http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-April/039422.html > >Disclaimer: I submitted the Mozilla Bugzilla ticket for some kind of >capability in this area.

Re: [whatwg] API to delay the document load event

* Glenn Maynard wrote: >This seems a bit heavy-handed. For these use cases, it doesn't seem like >you need to delay the whole onload event, which would have tons of >side-effects on the page. You could just tell the browser that you're >still doing things, without it having other script-visible e

Re: [whatwg] API to delay the document load event

* Robert O'Callahan wrote: >1) User-agents provide thumbnails of Web pages (e.g. desktop Firefox, >FirefoxOS and Safari do this). We want to avoid taking a thumbnail while >the application is incompletely loaded. The firing of the document load >event is not currently a reliable indicator since the

Re: [whatwg] HTML Namespace Elements

* Mohammad Al Houssami (Alumni) wrote: >In the tokenizer specifications of the HTML5 parser the following is written : > >"Otherwise, if there is a current node and it is not an element in the HTML >namespace " >What does it mean ? http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#ID-NodeNSname is

Re: [whatwg] Attribute value (double-quoted) state

* Mohammad Al Houssami (Alumni) wrote: >Hello everyone, >Can someone explain wat is meant in the attribute value double quoted state in >the tokenization specs : >http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tokenization.html#attribute-value-%28double-quoted%29-state >It says the b

Re: [whatwg] Priority between and content-disposition

* Jonas Sicking wrote: >It's currently unclear what to do if a page contains markup like href="page.txt" download="A.txt"> if the resource at audio.wav >responds with either > >1) Content-Disposition: inline >2) Content-Disposition: inline; filename="B.txt" >3) Content-Disposition: attachment; file

Re: [whatwg] Tokenizor PseudoCode

* Mohammad Al Houssami (Alumni) wrote: >I'm trying to build an HTML5 Parser in Smalltalk and as a first step I'm >implementing the tokenizer and everything happens there. I think this is >the case only when we have scripts that add characters to the HTML >document which is out of the scope of th

Re: [whatwg] Tokenizor PseudoCode

* Mohammad Al Houssami (Alumni) wrote: >I just want to make sure that in places where no state change is called >it means we stay in the same state right? You missed "When a token is emitted, it must immediately be handled by the tree construction stage. The tree construction stage can affect the

Re: [whatwg] Fetch: HTTP Authentication

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >So if the server replies with status 401 and a WWW-Authenticate header >that is properly formatted (I did not do detailed syntax checks but >e.g. WWW-Authenticate: basicerror does not work) is present, [...] Julian Reschke covers this on

Re: [whatwg] URL standard: Query string parsing; host parsing

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> Turning relative references into absolute ones is a generic operation >> that works the same for all schemes, as far as RFC 1808 (published in >> 1995) and its successors are concerned. &g

Re: [whatwg] URL standard: Query string parsing; host parsing

* Boris Zbarsky wrote: >On 3/13/13 4:23 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Under RFC 3986, it would resolve to >> >>jar:http://example.com/Bar.class > >If you assume that this is a hierarchical scheme and that the hierarchy >is in some particular place, no? Why is that assumption being made? Turni

Re: [whatwg] Fetch: number of tasks queued

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >For the "data:text/html," case Gecko reports both 2 and 4. For >"data:text/html,test" you get 2, 3 test, 4 test. Chrome/Safari >dispatch 4 (without test) and then throw mentioning a synchronous >request. Seems very much like an implementation bug. IE10 throws on >the ope

Re: [whatwg] Enabling LCD Text and antialiasing in canvas

* Rik Cabanier wrote: >FYI >http://www.istartedsomething.com/20120303/cleartype-takes-a-back-seat-for-windows-8-metro/ >IE 10 removed subpixel positioning and just use regular AA. The article seems to be about Windows 8 and neither it nor the comments seem to discuss Internet Explorer 10 on Window

Re: [whatwg] [URL] Cargo-cult naming in URL and matching

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >> But if I've been vended a URL object from some API, I first have to compare >> the bases. I'd like a way to ask something like "is the full URL >> up-to-and-including this component the same?" E.g., if I have an AP

Re: [whatwg] [Notifications] Constructor should not have side effects

* Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: >> For example you can do var request = new XMLHttp( ) at the start of a >> function, but then later decide you didn't want to send the request, and >> never call send(). > >Is that even a valid use case? It seems dubi

Re: [whatwg] suggestin a minor addion to the DOM

* Andri Sævar Sigríksson wrote: >suggestion > >Boolean value > >implemented as Window.nobackspace or Navigator.nobackspace > >if set to true the browser would not accept the key press on backspace as >a signal to go to the previous page Why would users want that? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo.

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for HTML5: Virtual Tours

* Jesús Ruiz García wrote: >My proposal is to give more support to this type of works. We could create >a new tag called "tour" or something similar. If video and audio have own >tag, also a tour could be differentiated from the other elements of the >website. http://www.w3.org/community/declarati

Re: [whatwg] XHR Level 2: Accurate Speed Measurement

* Rodger Combs wrote: >XHR currently provides no reliable method of determining the actual >upload or download speed of a transfer. It also does not provide an ETA >estimate. I propose three new read only properties of the XHR object: >XHR.timeRemaining = estimated time left in ms >XHR.completionT

Re: [whatwg] Inserting a DocumentFragment of multiple text nodes into a script element

* David Flanagan wrote: >What is the correct behavior for the following code? > > >window.onload = test; > >function test() { > var s = document.createElement("script"); > document.head.appendChild(s); > > var f = document.createDocumentFragment(); > >f.appendChild(document.createT

Re: [whatwg] When a script element's child nodes are changed

* David Flanagan wrote: >All browsers do that correctly. The case I'm interested in is this one: > > var s1 = document.createElement("script"); > var t1 = document.createTextNode(""); > s1.appendChild(t1); > document.head.appendChild(s1); > t1.appendData("alert('changed text no

Re: [whatwg] Geographic hyperlinks

* Christoph Päper wrote: >Tantek Çelik: >> See RFC 5870[1] for a proposed standard geo URI scheme for "geo:" hyperlinks. > >I wonder whether this scheme, someday, will be extended to include a >domain part, e.g. geo:13.4125,103.8667@mars, or whether we’ll rather get >a ‘astro:’ scheme. You can spe

Re: [whatwg] window.onerror and cross-origin scripts

* Simon Pieters wrote: >This makes window.onerror rather useless for cross-origin scripts. >However, it is still possible to tell if the user is logged in or not if a >site serves a script for a particular URL when the user is logged in and >redirects to the home page or so when the user is n

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for improved handling of '#' inside of data URIs

* Michal Zalewski wrote: >What about javascript: URLs? > >Right now, every browser seems to treat javascript:alert('#') in an >"intuitive" manner. With ...#x"> Firefox will scroll down to the second p element with value "#x". That is neither very intuitive nor interoperable. As it is, the draft s

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for improved handling of '#' inside of data URIs

* Boris Zbarsky wrote: >I think you misunderstand my position. I'm weakly against the proposal >in question; the strongest argument in favor of the proposal is that >there is either a current or future deployed base of data: URIs that >won't work without it but do work in either past browsers o

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for improved handling of '#' inside of data URIs

* Boris Zbarsky wrote: >On the other hand, this would presumably mostly be a problem for people >hand-writing data: URIs. Any sort of data: URI generator would get this >right, as you point out. (That seems very much like saying "Any sort of SQL query generator would get this right." especially

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for improved handling of '#' inside of data URIs

* Daniel Holbert wrote: > In particular: when a "#" character is followed by ">" or "<" in a data >URI, I propose that we *don't* treat the "#" as a delimiter, and instead >just treat it as part of the encoded document. Your proposal does not explain whether this applies to base64 encoded ones,

Re: [whatwg] Node inDocument

* Erik Arvidsson wrote: >compareDocumentPosition is a terrible API but I guess there is nothing >preventing implementors to optimize the case where one node is the >document. There is a proprietary Element.contains method implemented by some. The method could be put on the Document interface in wh

Re: [whatwg] Node inDocument

* Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> >> This is addressed by Node.compareDocumentPosition. Have you missed this >> or is there some problem making that perform properly? > >Node.compareDocumentPosition is O(n) when both nod

Re: [whatwg] Node inDocument

* Erik Arvidsson wrote: >As we were looking at mutation events we realized that we would like >to expose whether a Node is in the document or not. Both WebKit and >Gecko have an O(1) way of determine this. Today, to do this in script >this is O(depth) which is clearly sub optimal. > >We are therefo

Re: [whatwg] Why deflate-stream is required to be enabled by the WebSocket API?

* Adam Barth wrote: >On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> There is draft-tyoshino-hybi-websocket-perframe-deflate for that. It's >> not a solution to the problem Takeshi Yoshino raised though, which is >> about whether Websocket API conformance sho

Re: [whatwg] Why deflate-stream is required to be enabled by the WebSocket API?

* Adam Barth wrote: >On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> The deflate-stream extension, when used for browser to server messages >> allows an attacker to put whatever bytes he likes on the wire, after a >> bit of unpredictable junk. Browser vendors w

Re: [whatwg] Why deflate-stream is required to be enabled by the WebSocket API?

* Takeshi Yoshino wrote: >Use of deflate-stream is now mandatory in API spec. I think this kind of >requirement is useless. How about leave it up to implementors' decision? >http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12917 The deflate-stream extension, when used for browser to server messages a

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for IsSearchProviderInstalled / AddSearchProvider

* Kornel Lesi?ski wrote: >Change of default search engine may have security implications — there are >less tech-savvy people who rely on search engine for *everything* they do >on the net and blindly trust the results (see famous "facebook login" >case). (There are in fact many people who do

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

* John Tamplin wrote: >This is all arguing about semantics. The point is the current mechanisms >for handling scripts are insufficient, and on mobile phones in particular >the process of reading the contents of a script tag (whether you call that >parsing, executing definitions, or whatever), is w

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

* Boris Zbarsky wrote: >On 2/10/11 3:23 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> There are multiple phases between receiving bytes on the wire and having >> executed the code they represent. Parsing would seem unlikely to be the >> main problem here (parsing is mainly checking for s

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for separating script downloads and execution

* Kyle Simpson wrote: >For the purposes of this discussion, we are combining (but safely so, I >believe) "execution" and "parsing", and saying that we want to be able to >defer the "parse/execution" phase of script loading. The reason it's >necessary to draw the distinction (and point out that p

Re: [whatwg] Appcache feedback (various threads)

* Glenn Maynard wrote: >On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > That's far too generic for servers to default to mapping *.manifest to >> > text/cache-manifest. For example, Windows uses *.manifest for SxS >> > assembly manifests. >> >> Do they have a MIME type? If not, it doesn'

Re: [whatwg] Websockets

* Schalk Neethling wrote: >I guess a lot of people are asking the question but, what is the state >on the following: >http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-firefox-4/ > >Apparently this is the case in Opera as well. This is an announcement from today, so in all likelyhood nothing

Re: [whatwg] self-closing tags in html5

* William F Hammond wrote: >Does anyone seriously think that "" is an ordinary open tag? They do if it's like in `http://example.org/>`. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dageb

Re: [whatwg] getElementById

* Perry Smith wrote: >As part of HTMLElement, have a defined bucket, maybe call it >elementObject which is defined to be a native ECMAScript object. If X >denotes a particular DOM element, then X.elementObject is defined to >return the same native ECMAScript object each time. More details could >

Re: [whatwg] DOMTimeStamp binding

* Kartikaya Gupta wrote: >DOM 3 Core says this about DOMTimeStamp: > >> For Java, DOMTimeStamp is bound to the long type. For ECMAScript, >> DOMTimeStamp >> is bound to the Date type because the range of the integer type is too small. The former WebAPI working group discussed this issue and found

Re: [whatwg]

* Ian Hickson wrote: >Over the years, several people (most of them bcc'ed) have asked for HTML5 >to include a definition of . Some have even gone as far as finding >documentation on the element -- thank you. > >As I understand it based on the documentation, basically >generates a public/private

Re: [whatwg] Is EBCDIC support needed for not breaking the Web?

* Henri Sivonen wrote: >This makes me wonder: Do the top browsers support any EBCDIC-based >encodings but just without exposing them in the UI? If not, can there >be any notable EBCDIC-based Web content? Internet Explorer should support any character encoding Windows supports (see the advanced

Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events

* Magnus Kristiansen wrote: >Mouseover/out events will trigger when elements contained inside the >EventTarget are hovered, and then bubble up. This is contrary to the most >obvious interpretation, as you are still inside (over) the targeted >element. IE supports two events, mouseenter[1] and

Re: [whatwg]

* Lachlan Hunt wrote: >Martin Atkins wrote: >> Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> For color, you are reinventing Media Queries. For compression, you are >>> basically reinventing q values for MIME types. >>> >>> >>> You are using HTTP accept-parameters in a context where a media type with optional paramet

Re: [whatwg] More comments and questions on Web Apps 1.0

* Ian Hickson wrote: >> 2.14.1.1. >> The spec should probably mention >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoehrmann-script-types-03.txt or >> its >> successor around here. > >I have no idea which section that was, nor which RFC that is (the URI is >now dead). Is there an updated link? T

Re: [whatwg] Canvas operators (was Re: several messages)

* ddailey wrote: >http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/svg/ComponentTransferComposite.svg. >It produces an image which looks like a spectrum-equalized version of the >negative. Use color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de We

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

* James Graham wrote: >The pain of having things that "everyone knows" are needed to make a useful >HTML >reading device but are not documented as such. A specification is >documentation >both of the language and what needs to be done to implement a UA to read it >and >I see no reason to arbi

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

* James Graham wrote: >Partly it's for documentation: a statement of what you need to produce a >functional web browser. Partly to give vendors a well-defined target; it is >only >very recently that IE has grown full support for PNG files, for example. I have a hard time following you. Could yo

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

* James Graham wrote: >I think you are mistaking a requirement for all UAs with one for UAs that >support the display of images. For UAs that support the display of images, >authors rely on GIF, JPEG and PNG support being avaliable. The specifcation >should reflect the reality that any UA with i

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >Also, I think the HTML specification should mandate (as SHOULD-level >requirement, probably) support for the various supported image formats as >it gives a clear indication of what authors can rely on and what user >agents have to implement in order to support the

Re: [whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements)

* Christian F.K. Schaller wrote: >All w3c standards are royalty free and there is no reason why this >proposal should be different in that regard. And as Håkon Wium Lie >pointed out in another email, the latest SVG standard already mandates >Vorbis support, so half of what is needed is already spec

Re: [whatwg] element proposal

* Håkon Wium Lie wrote: >Do you really think using "beginElement" would be better? Do you really think using two different methods to trigger playback of svg:video and xhtml:video elements is better than using a single method? Or what about different methods to trigger an animation or transition e

Re: [whatwg] element proposal

* Håkon Wium Lie wrote: >Namespaces are hard and I doubt that any markup that requires using >them will succeed. Also, the vendor-specific string is troublesome for >general use. If we want to make video a first-class citizen on the web >(and I think we do) we can afford to give it its own element

Re: [whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 and the W3C Patent Policy

* Matthew Raymond wrote: > The following individuals may or may not have agreed to the W3C >Patent Policy regarding the Web Forms 2.0 specification: > If your name is on the list above, please agree to the license so we >can circumvent the patent policy issue in the HTML WG. Let me know if >yo

Re: [whatwg] element proposal

* Stuart Langridge wrote: >Of course, this only works with stuff that WMP can already play, which >will make backending a proposed tag to this impractical (since >you can't mandate a format that Windows doesn't have, in particular >Ogg *, and there are doubtless issues with mandating formats that

Re: [whatwg] IRIs vs. URIs

* Peter Karlsson wrote: >There is a setting in Opera to control the behaviour. Either we use UTF-8 >for all URLs (the default), or we use the document encoding. The latter >setting is popular in some locales, especially Russia (IIRC). That's Appendix B of HTML 4.01. >Having a real specification

Re: [whatwg] element proposal

* Håkon Wium Lie wrote: >I think we want to make video a first class citizen of the web. That >means, IMHO, that there must be a simple way to add video to HTML >pages. I don't think one shoulr rely on other languages for this, >although I'm perfectly happy supporting those other languages as well.

Re: [whatwg] IRIs vs. URIs

* L. David Baron wrote: >If we say they're IRIs then the encoding step is always encoding to >UTF-8. But the traditional behavior for URIs has been to encode >based on the encoding of the document, which requires tracking, for >every URI, what the encoding of the document, style sheet, or script >

Re: [whatwg] versus xml:base

* Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote: >Let's say the document from my example was located on >'http://users.example.org/bob/'. According to the XML Base specification, >the initial base URI of the document (in this example) is «the URI used to >retrieve the entity». Since 'xml:base' affects , and not the

Re: [whatwg] Using the HTML5 DOCTYPE as a new quirksmode switch

* Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote: >No. Internet Explorer hasn't implemented (at least that I am aware of) >any proprietary or broken stuff in their browser for over 7 years. No, IE7 introduces for example the -ms-interpolation-mode CSS property. There is of course little wrong with that. -- Björn Höhrmann

Re: [whatwg] Configure Apache to send the right MIME type for XHTML

* L. David Baron wrote: >My dismissal of XHTML is that the designers of XHTML and related >standards are repeatedly introducing more and more incompatibility >between XHTML and HTML, which makes it progressively harder for >authors to transition to XHTML (particularly to do so gradually on a >large

Re: [whatwg] Configure Apache to send the right MIME type for XHTML

* Leons Petrazickis wrote: >Though Michael's homepage is invalid, it remains well-formed. Michael >is arguing for the inhert value of XML well-formedness, not validity. The tool you've used to determine that does not work correctly. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoe

Re: [whatwg] element proposal

* Gervase Markham wrote: >A good point. I know nothing about extending IE; would it be possible to >have an IE addon which implemented support for a tag, or would >it need to be a plugin and therefore use -style markup? Why would you need an add-on? Internet Explorer has had support for a video

Re: [whatwg] Distinguishing XML and HTML by content sniffing

* Michael Day wrote: >For user agents like Prince that support XML and HTML content it is >sometimes necessary to distinguish whether a .html file is actually XML >or HTML in order for it to be processed correctly. > >I've written an article for XML.com explaining exactly how Prince >performs co

Re: [whatwg] element proposal

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >Opera has some internal expiremental builds with an implementation of a > element. The element exposes a simple API (for the moment) much >like the Audio() object: > > play() > pause() > stop() May I suggest Opera does not implement features that are incompati

Re: [whatwg] Spec should give guidance on compound document integration points

* Anne van Kesteren wrote: >On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:20:48 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One of the sources of complexity in RDF syntax is the requirement that >> it could be included in HTML documents in a way that didn't upset legacy >> browsers. There are assor

Re: [whatwg] The HTML5 outline algorithm and Selectors

* Henri Sivonen wrote: >Is there any coordination between the WHATWG and CSS WG for allowing >selector matching based on the outline depth as per the HTML5 outline >algorithm? Or is there perhaps already a way? (My knowledge of >developments related to Selectors isn't quite up-to-date.) No.

Re: [whatwg] Sandboxing scripts in pages

* James M Snell wrote: >Whatever shape the mechanism ultimately takes, having a way of isolating >scripts within a document would be extremely beneficial. It would be helpful if you could first explain what pain you are trying to solve and how your solution would solve it. For example, a malicious

Re: [whatwg] contenteditable, and

* Henri Sivonen wrote: >The introduction of and (circa 1993) has failed to >achieve a semantic improvement over and , because prominent >tools such as Dreamweaver, Tidy, IE and Opera as well as simplified >well-intentioned advocacy treat and merely as more >fashionable alternatives to

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Ian Hickson wrote: >No conformance criteria are broken if the user agent is assumed to have >"converted" the document to a serialisable form by adding an appropriate > element and then serialised that. >If the user agent has not, e.g. it shows a tree of what it thinks it >serialised, and that

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Ian Hickson wrote: >No, he doesn't. The spec explicitly says of the 9.1 section that "it does >not apply to conformance checkers; conformance checkers must use the >requirements given in the next section ("parsing HTML documents")". (Just >added; the spec said something equivalent before but i

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Ian Hickson wrote: >I agree that the requirements could be deduced. But unless they are >actually there, they aren't actually there. If you see what I mean. If something can be deduced it "is there" for all intents and purposes. You can look at this from a very practical perspective: someone wa

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Ian Hickson wrote: >No, it doesn't. It doesn't define the syntax at all. It defines how to >parse the syntax, and what to report as a syntax error, but that section >has no normative criteria that apply to documents. That is quite irrelevant. The definition of the parsing algorithm along with

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Ian Hickson wrote: >How do you propose to organise it instead? The XML, HTML, and CSS >specifications quite clearly show that organising it so that the syntax >and the parsing rules are defined in the same prose leads to serious >deficiences (HTML forgot to define parsing altogether, CSS faile

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Ian Hickson wrote: >> You should request removal of the section. It is just a non-normative >> discussion of implications of the parsing algorithm despite the claim >> that "extra restrictions" are being defined and the misuse of RFC2119 >> keywords. As the thread shows, such discussion is unlike

Re: [whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

* Lachlan Hunt wrote: > The spec should mention the additional restriction that table >elements cannot contain child tr elements, because they imply the tbody >element in such cases. > >http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#restrictions U+0059 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Y U+006F LATIN S

Re: [whatwg] The problems with namespaces in text/html

* Elliotte Harold wrote: >Really? Never? There are many HTML 4 documents that are well-formed XML >documents? Are these not legal HTML 5 documents? I scanned the spec >quickly, but I didn't find anything that was flat out forbidden by XML. For a document to be a HTML 4 document it would need a

Re: [whatwg] The problems with namespaces in text/html

* Lachlan Hunt wrote: >Yes, never! For one, a conforming HTML 5 (not XHTML 5) document >requires the DOCTYPE to be and that is not well-formed XML. Yes it is. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoe

Re: [whatwg] Video (Was: How not to fix HTML)

* Ian Hickson wrote: >Sure. FWIW, there's a lot of interest in browser vendors about introducing >a element or some such (or maybe making browsers natively support >video in , or both). And there I thought had already been introduced in 1998. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · htt

Re: [whatwg] Parsing: Disallow slashes in unquoted attribute values?

* Ian Hickson wrote: >On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> >> * Ian Hickson wrote: >> >It is very common to see markup such as: >> > >> > http://example.com/>Example >> > >> >I don't see any good reason to make that n

Re: [whatwg] Parsing: Disallow slashes in unquoted attribute values?

* Ian Hickson wrote: >It is very common to see markup such as: > > http://example.com/>Example > >I don't see any good reason to make that non-conforming in HTML5. It is very common to see code such as: echo "..."; -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Wei

Re: [whatwg] IRIs and javascript: scheme

* Christian Schmidt wrote: >AFAICS "javascript:alert(123)" is not a valid IRI according to RFC 3987 >(it should be "javascript:alert%28123%29" instead) and is thus not >allowed in an field. You are mistaken. >This is somewhat surprising to me, and I think it will confuse users >that they now h

Re: [whatwg] [wf2] Late comments and questions on Web Forms 2.0

* Ian Hickson wrote: >I think we're talking about different parts of the spec. The "accept" >attribute in 2.14 is for and is new to WF2. It is vaguely >defined and has no UA conformance requirements. It is mostly intended to >spurr implementors into coming up with new interaction models for >

Re: [whatwg] [wf2] Late comments and questions on Web Forms 2.0

* Ian Hickson wrote: >> 2.14. >> "Authors may include an accept attribute on textarea elements to indicate >> the >> type of content expected. User agents may use this attribute to provide more >> appropriate editors, syntax highlighting, spelling checkers, etc. The value >> of >> the attribute

[whatwg] WF2: enctype value dispatch

Hi, http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/ 5.6 has "The value of the enctype attribute must be dispatched using a case- insensitive literal comparison." This text doesn't make any sense to me. regards, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh

Re: [whatwg] Internal character encoding declaration

* Ian Hickson wrote: >Currently the behaviour is very underspecified here: > > http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#documentEncoding > >I'd like to rewrite that bit. It will require a lot of research; of >existing authoring practices, of current UAs, and of author needs. If >anyone wa

Re: [whatwg] The problem of duplicate ID as a security issue

* Alexey Feldgendler wrote: >This kind of attack is hard to circumvent through use of HTML cleaners >because id="addtomemories" looks like an innocent attribute, like an >anchor for navigation. Preventing such attacks by a HTML cleaner would >require either making a full list of all "forbidde

Re: [whatwg] Update to the Adoption Agency Algorithm

* Ian Hickson wrote: >> Well, if you approach the problem by asking whether it's possible that >> things become non-compliant, you'll either have to analyze any and all >> dependencies like server-side scripts and workflows or you'd generate >> false negatives, since adding some external data to

Re: [whatwg] Update to the Adoption Agency Algorithm

* Ian Hickson wrote: >On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Blanchard, Todd wrote: >> You are assuming that validators run javascript - they generally don't. >> I'm hoping to add it to Scrutinizer >> (http://www.blackbagops.net/seaside/html) but that would make it unique >> in the world of validators. > >It's mat