On Wednesday 2015-10-21 11:38 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/20/15 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > W3C DOM4
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/
> > deadline: November 3, 2015
> >
> >Both specifications are derived from upstream WHATWG specifications.
>
> As of which date?
>
> I ask becaus
IMO given the number of people who have complained about the lack of this
feature on bug 825294, we should assume it is desirable to have even if
unstylable. If somebody claims otherwise the burden of proof should be on
them to show data that falsifies the assumption.
kats
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3
html5test.com gives points for supporting those types. That alone
doesn't justifying doing them, but it's not nothing either.
Rob
--
lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr rdn rdsme,anea lurpr edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
toD
selthor stor edna siewaoeodm or v sstvr esBa kbvted,t
rdsme,aoreseoouoto
o l e
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>>> Authors sometimes just want something usable. It doesn't matter if it
>>> is not stylable, or it doesn't fit in the UI. When they
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote:
>> Authors sometimes just want something usable. It doesn't matter if it
>> is not stylable, or it doesn't fit in the UI. When they really need to
>> start caring about such things, they c
5 matches
Mail list logo