encode() should return a Uint8Array in the IDL, in my opinion. Right
now the prose says that it does, while the IDL has ArrayBufferView,
which doesn't make much sense to me.
-Boris
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
After all, what's the point of using validation if you use a generator?
People who are not the developer of the generator use validators to
assess the quality of the markup generated by the generator.
You would in effect be
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Agreed. I support making having some kind of trial period like what you
describe, or a year or two or 18 months. If we do that I would prefer that
the spec include some kind of note/warning making it clear that the
attribute
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
bhawkesle...@googlemail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to combine this with the linter complaining about
all controls (links, buttons, form fields) have markup that yield a
non-empty accessible name without invoking repair techniques such
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
bhawkesle...@googlemail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to combine this with the linter complaining about
all controls (links, buttons, form fields) have markup that
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
encode() should return a Uint8Array in the IDL, in my opinion. Right now
the prose says that it does, while the IDL has ArrayBufferView, which
doesn't make much sense to me.
My recollection is this was to allow returning
On 8/5/12 12:29 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
My recollection is this was to allow returning Uint16Array (or, more
specifically but currently unresolved, Uint16LEArray and Uint16BEArray) for
encoding to UTF-16 and UTF-16BE.
If that ever happens the return value can be changed at that point.
It's
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
If that ever happens the return value can be changed at that point. It's
silly to build in extensibility like this, imo, because there's
absolutely no reason for it: changing the return value to a superclass is
completely
On 8/5/12 1:39 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I didn't say it was extensibility, just a leftover from something that
was either considered and dropped or forgotten about.
Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about leaving the return value
as-is so that Uint16Array return values can be added
On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one
name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long
img src=... generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=
This has several key
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one
name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long
img src=...
Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com schrieb am Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:31:00
-0700:
[…]
Here's a review of other proposed names and a few new ideas:
[…]
unknown
Pro: correctly conveys the reason for omitting alt, i.e. that the
name is unknown to the generator Con: might not be clear that it
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Here's a review of other proposed names and a few new ideas:
validator-ignore=alt
--
Glenn Maynard
13 matches
Mail list logo
