On Dec 9, 2008, at 01:06 , Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 8, 2008, at 17:26 , Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Similar functionality was previously requested and rejected for
the xml and xmlns prefixes, and I see no reason to treat the xhtml
and svg prefixes any differently.
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:12:11 +0100, Erik Dahlström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO the spec is trying to require something that is not enforcable
anyway, and might as well not mention it, but instead just describe what
happens for all possible indata.
Valid SVG, valid XHTML, or valid HTML
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:26:18 +0100, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Schepers wrote:
As a high-level comment, the SVG WG would prefer to see support for
namespaces in the specification. We believe that there will be an
increasing amount of (X)HTML+SVG content produced, and that
Simon Pieters wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:26:18 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Section 6. The NodeSelector Interface
The caller must pass a valid group of selectors.
That's an authoring requirement, explain how that is applicable?
It seems perfectly applicable for
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:26:18 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Section 6. The NodeSelector Interface
The caller must pass a valid group of selectors.
That's an authoring requirement, explain how that is applicable?
It seems perfectly applicable for the spec to define how
On Dec 9, 2008, at 10:28 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:12:11 +0100, Erik Dahlström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IMHO the spec is trying to require something that is not enforcable
anyway, and might as well not mention it, but instead just describe
what happens for all
On Dec 9, 2008, at 12:46 , Erik Dahlström wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:26:18 +0100, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As a compromise, we believe that if the NSResolver support remains
removed from this specification, there should be explicit mention of
workarounds (see below), and an
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:53:22 +0100, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If authors want to use application/xml,
then they can use content src=somefile type=application/xml /
and hope for the best :)
I haven't been following the widget discussion very closely, so I
apologize if this issue is
