Re: [whatwg] Parsing: in unquoted attribute values
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:17:12 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We do no longer support this in mozilla (if we ever did). A reason we now explicitly forbid this is we don't want it to ever be possible to create elements with 'illegal' names. Same thing goes for attribute names. This is partially for security reasons since some elements and attributes carry very important security information. Could you elaborate on the security issues? Could you also give a definition of illegal names as it's not really clear to me what that means for HTML. I fully agree with Simons original proposal though. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
[whatwg] Target Attribute Values
Hi, This is regarding the valid browsing context names, used for the target attribute [1]. Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't list any. I've argued against popups many times before and heard many arguments for them, but I'm yet to hear of any legitimate use cases. If there are any, what are they? _new is also not specced, yet it is widely used and treated as a magic value like _blank in Firefox. Maybe it should be specced the same as _blank. However, IE, Opera and Safari didn't appear to treat it as such, so maybe it's not needed. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#valid8 -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Re: [whatwg] Suggestion for new element/attribute
This code works fine. The only thing is to move * width into CSS. table tr td divblablabla/div . . . /td td width=*nbsp;/td /tr /table Brenton Strine wrote: Consider this case: You have a table one row high with two cells. It's width is 100%. You want the width of the left cell to be only as big as the content, and you want the right cell to take up all the rest of the space. However, the amount of content in both the right and the left cell changes, so you can't give a percent or a pixel width. In that situation, you could either 1) intentionally give the right cell an incorrect width of 100%, or 2) put a whole lot of invisible text in it, so that the cell always expands enough to make the left cell only the minimum size needed. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:44 PM To: Brenton Strine Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] Suggestion for new element/attribute This sounds very much like something that should be done in CSS, not HTML. But can you explain what you mean by expand ... as if it were full of text? If something is already a given size, then filling it with text should not make it expand. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis Brenton Strine wrote: Hello, I am new here, so please let me know if I am doing anything out of order. I would like to make a suggestion for soemthing I want to see in HTML5. I call it the inflate tag. inflate. The purpose of this tag is to expand that which contains it as if it were full of text. I have seen many websites where the designers were forced to put long strings of hidden text into a cell in order to make it expand correctly. Thus text browsers find strange segments like this: w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Of course, developers already have the ability to specify the width in terms of pixels, ems, percent, and tons of other stuff. But there are times, particularly in fluid design, when you can't get the div to work the way you want without text to expand it. This could even be an attribute rather than a tag: width=inflate. Brenton
Re: [whatwg] include element
Jonas Sicking wrote: The idea is basically an element like iframe but that renders the linked page, instead of inside a square area, in flow with the main page. This is actually useful not only in Ajax-like applications like the ones suggested in your example but also in more static pages as a replacement for server-side includes. Client-side includes make it easier to make sites that are made up data from different sources. Most developers prefer to avoid server-site includes in favour of letting clients request the resource directly. Some sites may choose to serve the top-level navigation from one central place, even though the site is made up of several subsites hosted on different servers and platforms by different hosting companies. The include element could be used to include the top-level navigation on each of the subsites. Also, content from different subsites could be aggregated on one overview page using include. Ad banners are usually served from a seperate server. Banners with fixed proportions are probably better served using an IFRAME, but e.g. Google's text-ads may vary in size and could benefit from being a part of the page. In practice, the result effect is often achieved by wrapping your include file in a document.write() and including this using script a script src= However, this makes it harder to write these includes by hand (you have to escape certain characters, ' \ \n \r \t), and debugging also gets more difficult. Christian
Re: [whatwg] video title or alt attribute
Actually the proposed model allows for the use of real content, not just an attribute. This is generally regarded as a better approach for accessibility since it provides much more flexibility (and as it happens provides for better backwards compatibility as well. So instead of video src=foo alt=video of me falling off a bike You can have video src=foo object type=video/theora+ogg src=foo Sorry, it seems your browser isn't playing a href=fooimg src=fooshot alt=br the cool video of me/a that I put here. Pity, you are missing out on watching me fall off a bicycle. pStill, you can always read a href=reviewsthe reviews and descriptions/a from my friends instead... /object /video or something. (If you are using HTML as a source for multilingual sites, or something more complex, you get even more magic. But that's a somewhat advanced use case). cheers Chaals
Re: [whatwg] video title or alt attribute
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:57:16 +0200, Stuart Langridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the intention that fallback content inside the video element is displayed for all of 1. the source URL throws an error 2. the user agent has video switched off somehow 3. the user agent doesn't support video ? Obviously (3) comes by default without changes. If the above is the intention then obviously the fallback content is the alternative rendering and so you don't need alt. Currently alternative content for audio and video isn't dealt with very well, I think. It does address fallback content for older user agents but it does not address disabling support for video and not being able to support video (Lynx) at least. Ian mentioned on IRC yesterday he will look into that at some point. Regarding your first point above. If that happens the author will have to ensure proper fallback I think. Given that video itself can go wrong at times as well showing fallback when something goes wrong makes it quite complicated I'm afraid. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] Target Attribute Values
Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is regarding the valid browsing context names, used for the target attribute [1]. Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't list any. I've argued against popups many times before and heard many arguments for them, but I'm yet to hear of any legitimate use cases. If there are any, what are they? _new is also not specced, yet it is widely used and treated as a magic value like _blank in Firefox. Maybe it should be specced the same as _blank. However, IE, Opera and Safari didn't appear to treat it as such, so maybe it's not needed. As a user I detest new windows opening without having chosen to do that myself. But I'd question the wisdom of making _blank non conforming. 1) At least _blank allows me to filter it out before sending it to my browser. 2) Afaik currently any attribute value for the target attribute which hasn't been defined opens a new window. If _blank were made non conforming authors would imo resort to using non defined names which has the same result in practice, but which makes filtering such methods out on the user end much harder. I've argued my socks off trying to convince authors that they should leave opening new windows to users, but there are an awful lot of them who for various reasons insists on doing just that. Would perhaps a spec conformance requirement that browsers should offer users a config option to opt out of windows being opened via target values be an alternative? It could avoid the seemingly unwin'able argument with authors who insist on doing this, and give users the final say Mozilla already offers such an opt out afaik. -- Spartanicus
[whatwg] Page load processing model for plugins
* Why is this section named Page load processing model for content that uses plugins as opposed to Page load processing model plugins which would be more in line with the rest of the sections there? * It says to set the src attribute of the img element as opposed to setting the src attribute of the embed element. * It talks about address of the image as opposed to address of the plugin. * I only got Opera to reveal that this is in fact how it's implemented, but it seems that we also set height and width attributes on embed (both to 100%) and remove margins on the body element. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
[whatwg] Content-Type sniffing: image
This section has the following line: User agents must ignore any rows for image types that they do not support. In my mind, this is in direct conflict with the warning above that says it's imperative for user agents to follow the same set of rules for security reasons. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] Request for mail list for svn checkin messages
Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2007-04-25 17:22 +: On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: I'd like to request you consider setting up a new mailing list to which commit descriptions and diffs for checkins against the webapps source get posted. Already tried, in response to your #whatwg comment, as you noted. Yep, saw that -- thanks. Seems to be some problem with your mail server configuration; if I e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: host lists.whatwg.org[66.33.216.179] said: 550 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table (in reply to RCPT TO command) I guess that means you don't have a commit-watchers-request provisioned/aliased yet. It doesn't seem to have taken very well though. I shall investigate further. Let me know if there's any way I can help with troubleshooting it. --Mike smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[whatwg] HTML 5 article review
I'm writing an introductory article for developerWorks focusing specifically on the new elements in HTML 5: m, section, video, etc. It stops short of DOM and WebForms 2.0 for the most part. The goal is to focus on the new markup for hand coders. I'm writing from the spec with little access to actual implementations so doubtless there are some errors. If anyone here would like to take a quick look at the first draft and let me know of any problems you see, I'd appreciate it. Drop me a line privately, and I'll tell you where you can find it. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
Re: [whatwg] Target Attribute Values
Spartanicus wrote: Would perhaps a spec conformance requirement that browsers should offer users a config option to opt out of windows being opened via target values be an alternative? It could avoid the seemingly unwin'able argument with authors who insist on doing this, and give users the final say That falls into the realm of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, which already cover this topic: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-limit-viewports -- Bill Mason Accessible Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://accessibleinter.net/
Re: [whatwg] include element
Christian Schmidt wrote: In practice, the result effect is often achieved by wrapping your include file in a document.write() and including this using script a script src= However, this makes it harder to write these includes by hand (you have to escape certain characters, ' \ \n \r \t), and debugging also gets more difficult. This last point made me think of a related issue: When you use the above technique, the included script runs in the security context of the including page, and this technique therefore requires complete trust of the included document. Would documents included via include run in the security context of the including page, as with the script technique, or would they run in the context of the included document, as with iframes? Personally I favor the latter, but I wonder if this impact's anyone's use-cases?.
Re: [whatwg] modal and modeless windows
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Karl Pongratz wrote: I had a short look at the webforms and web applications specification at whatwg.org, I didn't find anything about modal and modeless windows. If there is anything to improve for html, xhtml, xforms and compound documents, then, in my opinion, the first missing feature that comes into my mind is the lack of modal and modeless windows. I've now added window.open(), irrelevant=, and target= to the specification, which should provide various ways of obtaining the effect you're looking for. For example, with irrelevant= you can hide the content you want to disable, and force the modal aspect of the application to be responded to before reshowing the other parts. [...] That's where most problems start in regard to web applications, this is not the only problem, but probably one of the most significant once, the browsing model. Can we change the browsing model? I think yes, by introducing modal and modeless windows, view documents by using the traditional browsing model, but anything else, manipulating data and form submission, would be done in modal windows, and more. Well, its not that simple, it may require to modify the caching model and other parts as well, however, I consider them as the primer for anything else. Notwithstanding the features that make this possible, I have to say that in general Web applications on the Web should not be written as if they are desktop applications. Many of the paradigms from desktop software either don't apply, or worse, apply poorly, to the Web. Modal dialogs are an example of this -- as a Web application author you should assume that the client and the server are independent, making the server provide an API that the client can interact with, regardless of which client is used (e.g. in could be a python script you didn't write); similarly, the client should assume that the server-side might do all kinds of things while it's running, e.g. changing the data from under it. Thus, concepts like modal dialogs for editing no longer work; instead you have to use concepts like those of wikis and collaborative software, even in the single-user case. Thanks for your input! Sorry it took so long for me to process it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Really Simple History: Bookmarking and Browser History Support for AJAX Applications
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Brad Neuberg wrote: I have posted a simple specification for bookmarking and back and forward button control for AJAX applications to my site; I'd love to see parts of it incorporated into the Web Applications standard if appropriate: http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/09/really-simple-history-bookmarking-and.html Interesting proposal; has there been any further work on this since then? I believe both the WHAT sessioning and storage APIs are complex and difficult to understand. I'm swamped right now with work, but when things ease I will prepare a longer response about these WHAT sections. Did things ever ease up, by any chance? I don't think we ever got a more detailed review. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Target Attribute Values
On Apr 26, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: ... Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't list any. I've argued against popups many times before and heard many arguments for them, but I'm yet to hear of any legitimate use cases. If there are any, what are they? ... For most desktop applications in-depth help is presented in a separate window, so this will also likely be desirable for Web applications that do not consist of scrollable pages. (In those that do consist of scrollable pages, help would generally be better embedded in the pages themselves, perhaps as expandable sections.) So that's a use case for popup windows, but not necessarily a use case for _blank, because help windows are usually reused (akin to target=myappnamehelp rather than target=_blank). -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
