Re: [whatwg] required attribute in label
Why not make required an acceptable attribute for the label element?
The class or title attribute can solve your problem:
label class=required
label.required:after {content:*}
label title=required
label[title~=required]:after {content:*}
Re: [whatwg] notation for typographical uncertainty
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:43 PM, ddailey ddai...@zoominternet.net wrote: ... Question: what markup will be least cumbersome (and hence most recommended) within a plain text document that may ultimately be converted (automagically) to HTML5, assuming, in the meantime, that we may stoop so low as to put it in HTML4. I know folks claim HTML5 will never break the web, but those folks and I have some beer to drink before we see eye to eye on that subject, having seen the web break so many times in the last 1.7 decades since I started playing with HTML at NCSA. Let us say I am a skeptic. W3C has published HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 [1]. If I understand your question, I think that document will be helpful, particularly the sections on changed and absent elements/attributes. Avoid the absent elements and review the changed elements and you should be fine. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/ -- Chris Cressman http://chriscressman.com
Re: [whatwg] small element should allow nested elements
Alternatively, does anyone else think the small element should be capable of wrapping inline and block elements? (raises hand) I agree that allowing small to wrap inlines and blocks addresses Remy's use case directly and would allow authors to create other useful patterns for small print. Personally, I would like to see this change in the spec. I admit though, I am ignorant of the issues this has caused for the other elements Ian mentioned. I see that the content model of address has been redefined in HTML 5 to allow block elements. I'd like to see a similar change for small, but I ultimately defer to Ian to weigh the benefits against the cost in added complexity. I think changing the content model of small is more appropriate than changing its description. If the content model does not change, the description should not change either (since the description and content model work together to explain the appropriate use of the element). Chris -- Chris Cressman http://chriscressman.com
[whatwg] Typo in 4.2.4 - missing of
From 4.2.4: If one the two files was returned without a Content-Type metadata, or with a syntactically incorrect type like Content-Type: null, then the default type for stylesheet links would kick in. I believe it should read If one _of_ the two files Chris -- Chris Cressman http://chriscressman.com
[whatwg] Typo in 4.2.4 - missing to
From 4.2.4: The LinkStyle interface is also be implemented by this element; the styling processing model defines how. I believe it should read The LinkStyle interface is also _to_ be implemented Chris -- Chris Cressman http://chriscressman.com
