I've been looking at the parsing chapter of the HTML5 specification, and
I've found something which I don't think makes sense. The last two
sentences in the 'An end tag whose tag name is body' section in the
in body insertion mode says:
Switch the insertion mode to after body. Otherwise,
The HTML5 spec is open to feedback from linguists, typographers and
content creators. I would agree we should particularly give consideration
to people with those backgrounds with regards to issues of semantics. On
the other hand, there is not total freedom here because some choices will
Sam Kuper wrote:
2008/11/5 Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
closely followed by the Mosaic Web Browser[1] a direct descendant of Firefox
Ancestor, surely?
LOL yes
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
timeless wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Berners-Lee apparently when he introduced a bunch of technologies such
as HTTP, HTML FTP, IP TCIP and others and called it the World Wide Web,
closely followed by the Mosaic Web Browser[1] a direct
The emphasis of the HTML5 spec (but also the XHTML2 and HTML4) lies on
the browser part. I understand, after all that is your job and I am sure
you are all very capable of that.
HTML5's emphasis appears to be on the browser part only because that part
is more complex than other parts. (I
On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:46, Pentasis wrote:
var is the best example I think. Why var but not function
operator operand etc. etc. etc.? And if code gets this attention
why not language? (verb, noun etc. etc.) If we do it like that
it would never work.
var, cite and dfn (and, one might
Pentasis schrieb:
The HTML5 spec is open to feedback from linguists, typographers and
content creators. I would agree we should particularly give
consideration to people with those backgrounds with regards to issues
of semantics. On the other hand, there is not total freedom here
because
Pentasis schrieb:
This I understand, and I can even sympathise with it. However, I do hope
that at least they will take this issue seriously and at least try to
build in something that will enable us to work on that part of the
spec independantly later on. I still think that the semantic part
Pentasis schrieb:
This I understand, and I can even sympathise with it. However, I do hope
that at least they will take this issue seriously and at least try to
build in something that will enable us to work on that part of the spec
independantly later on. I still think that the semantic
I made the experience when I suggested a new set of form elements, that I
did not get much response on those contributions. The same might happen to
your suggestions, as they are on a more basic level, than the HTML5 works
act on. I don't think you can blame the people working on HTML5 for
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure whether I understand you correctly... Of course the
practical use of a specification lies in its technical implementations, or
do you disagree with that? You are free to specify your own markup language,
but it
On Sat, 31 May 2008, Christoph P�per wrote:
When using
input type=checkbox
or
select multiple
one somtimes wants to limit the number of selected check boxes or
options. I have no idea how to model this with |input|, but |select|
could adopt the |min| and |max| attributes.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Keryx Web wrote:
A simple use case: It is getting quite common to have the following:
label for=myfieldInstructions
strong class=error Must be a valid value/strong
/label
input id=myfield etc /
But presentationwise it should be displayed like this:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Consider a form with a file input. User selects a huge file and hits
submit. Most UAs do not display nothing but an animated throbber until
the full submit is done and the download progress bar only starts to do
anything after the full submit
Nov 5, 2008, в 1:11 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
main.js:
w = new Worker('worker.js');
p = w.connect();
p.postMessage(17);
p.onmessage = function(e) {
answer = e.data;
}
I prefer to think of it as:
window.onload = function() {
var worker = new Worker('encrypt.js');
var workerPort
This would only work in new browsers and is wordy:
reference class=abbreviation ttle=some
descriptionsomeword/reference.
It doesn't add any extra information. It's harder to use.
Conceptually, it may be more elegant, but conceptual elegance is not
an impetus for large scale adoptions. In my
Dne Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:32:41 +0100 Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal/-a:
What's wrong with?:
label
Instructions
input name=idfield ...
strong class=error Must be a valid value /strong
/label
Hello, let me just react on this,
first of all I don't mind using this
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Samuel Santos wrote:
This is a problem for the input element with type=file. If the
language selected in his profile is, e.g. portuguese, and the language
in the browser is english (the default), he will see all the application
in portuguese and the input file browse
Jonas, Hixie, and I talked about this yesterday on IRC (logs start
here: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081104#l-575 and go
into the next day).
Jonas is still against removing postMessage/onmessage from the Worker
interface in favor of connect() only. Also, several people feel like
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Leons Petrazickis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It matters in the sense that web browsers would have to implement both
approaches for backwards compatibility.
This depends what you mean when talking about implementing a tag.
Browsers already load all tags and
Nov 5, 2008, в 11:06 PM, Aaron Boodman написал(а):
Jonas, Hixie, and I talked about this yesterday on IRC (logs start
here: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081104#l-575 and go
into the next day).
...
* Remove startConversation() from the Worker interface
* Remove the port property
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Aaron Boodman wrote:
In light of both of these, I have a new proposal for how to
simplify/combine these two interfaces. Here are the deltas from the
current spec:
* Remove startConversation() from the Worker interface
And from MessagePort, presumably?
* Remove the
Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
Nov 5, 2008, в 11:06 PM, Aaron Boodman написал(а):
Jonas, Hixie, and I talked about this yesterday on IRC (logs start
here: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081104#l-575 and go
into the next day).
...
* Remove startConversation() from the Worker interface
Ian Hickson wrote:
* Remove the port property from the SharedWorker interface and give it
a postMessage and onmessage just like dedicated workers have.
I really don't like this. With (Dedicated)Worker it makes sense because
both sides bury the underlying message channel and ports and so
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Samuel Santos wrote:
I find it very hard to convince some clients that in order to have the
browse button in their language they must configure their browsers. The
vast majority of them don't even
First of all, I want to apologize. I'm quite afraid that the explosion
of frustration and disappointment on my last message to this list was
one of the triggers (if not the only or main one) igniting the
conflict here. I'm really sorry for that: my only intention when
joined this list was to
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Samuel Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Samuel Santos wrote:
I find it very hard to convince some clients that in order to have the
browse button in their language
Ian,
If changing the button text can be a security issue (e.g. induce the user to
an action that he's not aware of), we can come up with some solutions.
What about allowing the Author to change the control's locale?
By doing so, the UA can then render the button with the same locale as the
LOL forgot to add the whatwg list to the To: field ^^;
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eduard Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Review of the 3.16 section and the
HTMLInputElement interface
To: Samuel Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Nov 6, 2008, в 2:18 AM, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
Similarly, having separate interfaces for Worker and SharedWorker
implies that there is some fundamental difference in their behavior
- a difference that eludes me so far.
A shared worker is shared between all scripts on a single site[*]
30 matches
Mail list logo
