Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element

On Jun 23, 2015, at 22:57, Mark Simon m...@manngo.net wrote: (This is my first post here, so I’m not sure about appropriate protocols). HTML5 adds more power to the heading elements, which is a good thing. However, there appears to be no recommended element for marking up a site-wide

Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element

I agree that the title/banner/logo element doesn't add much value. I don't feel like a tag to canonically declare the website name would add much value either - isn't that what the domain is for? Also the tag wouldn't be very trustworthy - the domain is less easy to lie about. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015

Re: [whatwg] JavaScript Hovers and Back Button

I have heard of a lot of abuses but never actually come across this particular one, can you point us to a site that demonstrates it? On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: > This btw is a security issue. Many of the scam sites that do things like >

Re: [whatwg] [proposal] Gallery element

Hi Hans, I'm not an important figure at all in the web world, but my intuition is this isn't a good candidate for a new feature in HTML. You've done a good job of abstracting the problem and exploring the edge cases but the feature is just too specific. I doubt browser vendors would want to

Re: [whatwg] Media query for bandwidth ??

Michael - I think "high" and "low" are very relative terms, defining those terms for all users for all time doesn't seem possible. Also, connectivity/bandwidth are subject to change at any moment during the lifetime of a page. Current media queries like `max-height` or `min-resolution` would

Re: [whatwg] window.innerScreenX and window.innerScreenY

Jan, does window.screenX/screenY not meet your needs? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/screenX https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/screenY On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM Jan Norden wrote: > There is currently no good way of

Re: [whatwg] window.innerScreenX and window.innerScreenY

Ah right.. would it be possible to compute the missing dimensions given a mouse event with screenX/Y and clientX/Y properties? On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 12/13/16 8:46 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote: > > Jan, does window.screenX/s

Re: [whatwg] window.opener security issues (Was: WhatWG is broken)

Could you elaborate on the point made earlier that CSP is too complicated to implement? What would the fix for this particularly security hole look like, using CSP? On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:11 AM Richard Maher wrote: Thanks Michael. So to be safe one should use Edge?

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

The solution most developers use is to run a simple web server that hosts static content, it's a much simpler solution than the API you propose and requires no changes to the spec. It doesn't address the CD-ROM use case, though.. On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 06:11 Melvin Carvalho

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

ge the DOM > can be altered without reloading the page. > > Structured data separate from the content is the only logical way to > account for that. > Respectfully disagree ;) > > On 07/24/2017 08:00 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote: > > I think one of the best aspects of t

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Michael, I was truly dismayed to see your reaction to my email. Qebui's interpretation is close to my intent, but upon re-reading it I agree that it seems condescending so, right on for calling that out. I want to point out that I am nobody at the WHATWG - I just lurk on this list and pipe up when

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

I think one of the best aspects of the web platform is that there can be a single node in the network that is accessible to *all*. The linked data approach hides the information from humans. The structured data alternative you suggest (div display none) still hides the information from humans.

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

I agree that reducing the bloat of JSON-LD is a noble goal. Sorry to belabor this point, but can you explain why JSON-LD is needed in the first place? I've tried to point out that HTML is capable of doing it without another spec, which obviates the need for content duplication and bloat that

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

at least it will be > more complete if you can use json-ld as it is easier to manage. > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Jonathan Zuckerman <j.zucker...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I agree that reducing the bloat of JSON-LD is a noble goal. Sorry to >> belabor this point, but ca

[whatwg] readonly attribute

I have a question about this section in the spec: Only text controls can be made read-only, since for other controls (such as checkboxes and buttons) there is no useful distinction between being read-only and being disabled, so the readonly

Re: [whatwg] HTML inputs directly toggling CSS classes on elements?

class names are meant to be a tiny wormhole which connects the worlds of content (HTML), presentation (CSS), and behavior (JS) - I think this suggestion begins to widen that rip, and it's inadvisable. It's a question of taste I guess, just which behaviors are primitive enough to not require

Re: [whatwg] DOM Feature Mod: Add metering / parallelism & throttling options to AddEventListenerOptions

torage/caching options, improved integration with security contexts > (per O/S), and likely much more. At least, I think it does :-). > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Jonathan Zuckerman <j.zucker...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> You’re probably aware there are li

Re: [whatwg] DOM Feature Mod: Add metering / parallelism & throttling options to AddEventListenerOptions

You’re probably aware there are libraries that offer functionality of this sort (debounce and throttle in underscore/lodash is the one I’m most familiar with) and the web community seems content to add a small dependency when such functionality is required. How would you convince browser vendors

Re: [whatwg] Security: emphasize that subdomain is not enough for user provided scriptable content

These domains are used specifically because they are reserved for that use - https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved If a non-reserved domain is used, it could be bought up by anyone and have its content changed to something not appropriate for linking from official spec documents. The note is