[whatwg] Section 5.7.3.3 Parsing cache manifests

2008-12-30 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
1. The signature of manifest is ^BOM?CACHE MANIFEST[ \t]*$. Since arbitrary whitespace is allowed at the end, it is not possible to verify it with a simple binary comparison, yet it unnecessarily forbids e.g. comments at the end. I suggest changing the signature to ^BOM?CACHE MANIFEST -

Re: [whatwg] (real?) web applications

2008-12-30 Thread Ian Hickson
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, ROBO Design wrote: I believe this is way too much to ask/suggest for Web Applications 1.0 (maybe 2.0). AFAIK, this is beyond the purpose of WA 1.0. Here it goes: 1. Add a special frame tag which displays live image data from the client web cams, TV tuners,

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Ian Hickson
In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute, based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox: http://www.damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt The same engineers have since implemented this feature in Chrome also, and Google does use this

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute, based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox: http://www.damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt The same engineers have since

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Geoffrey Sneddon
On 30 Dec 2008, at 11:38, Ian Hickson wrote: In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute, based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox: http://www.damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt The same engineers have since implemented this feature in

Re: [whatwg] Tri-state checkboxes

2008-12-30 Thread Ian Hickson
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Lachlan Hunt wrote: [In IE] The DOM property HTMLInputElement.indeterminate is supported for input type=checkbox I've reluctantly added this to the spec. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute, based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox:

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute, based on requests from the

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Kornel Lesiński
On 30.12.2008, at 13:45, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: I have therefore not added this feature to HTML5 for the time being. If there is more interest in this feature, please speak up. This seems stupid. If I want to have spell-checking, let me. Don't force it off. I don't see any reason to

Re: [whatwg] Section 5.7.3.3 Parsing cache manifests

2008-12-30 Thread timeless
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote: 1. The signature of manifest is ^BOM?CACHE MANIFEST[ \t]*$. Since arbitrary whitespace is allowed at the end, it is not possible to verify it with a simple binary comparison, yet it unnecessarily forbids e.g. comments

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread timeless
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote: It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID, license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc. Browser would mark these as misspelt, which might be confusing or at least distracting. this sounds

Re: [whatwg] Section 5.7.3.3 Parsing cache manifests

2008-12-30 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
Dec 30, 2008, в 7:09 PM, timeless написал(а): I suggest changing the signature to ^BOM?CACHE MANIFEST - then it will be easier to verify, and it will be possible to add comments at the end. This is how we have it in WebKit now, and changing the check to the more strict HTML5 one may

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Giovanni Campagna
2008/12/30 timeless timel...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote: It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID, license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc. Browser would mark these as misspelt, which might be

Re: [whatwg] Section 5.7.3.3 Parsing cache manifests

2008-12-30 Thread Jonas Sicking
2008/12/30 Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org: Dec 30, 2008, в 7:09 PM, timeless написал(а): I suggest changing the signature to ^BOM?CACHE MANIFEST - then it will be easier to verify, and it will be possible to add comments at the end. This is how we have it in WebKit now, and changing

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Robert O'Callahan
2008/12/31 timeless timel...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote: It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID, license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc. Browser would mark these as misspelt, which might be

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Robert O'Callahan
2008/12/31 Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com 2008/12/30 timeless timel...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote: It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID, license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc.

Re: [whatwg] number-related feedback

2008-12-30 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Shannon wrote: Either way I would recommend making a decision on minimum and maximum integer values an using them consistently. If not I can imagine the rapid adoption of 64-bit systems will cause

Re: [whatwg] number-related feedback

2008-12-30 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Shannon wrote: Either way I would recommend making a decision on minimum and maximum integer values an using them consistently. If not

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Calogero Alex Baldacchino
Robert O'Callahan ha scritto: 2008/12/31 Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com mailto:scampa.giova...@gmail.com 2008/12/30 timeless timel...@gmail.com mailto:timel...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net

Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III

2008-12-30 Thread Calogero Alex Baldacchino
Calogero Alex Baldacchino ha scritto: The language to check might be choosen from several sources, such as the 'lang' attribute of the contenteditable element itself, if different from the document language. For instance, a blog editor's interface document might not be translated in a

Re: [whatwg] number-related feedback

2008-12-30 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Shannon wrote: Either way I would recommend making a decision on minimum and maximum

Re: [whatwg] Section 5.7.3.3 Parsing cache manifests

2008-12-30 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
Dec 31, 2008, в 3:52 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а): this means we could never do: ^BOM?CACHE MANIFEST2 If incompatible changes to the format are ever needed, we can change Content-Type. Ugh, depending on the content-type for things like versioning would suck, people have a hard time