Hi Doug,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Folks-
>
> Boris Zbarsky wrote (on 1/23/09 9:25 AM):
>> Things will get even worse once SVG Tiny 1.2 is a REC, since at that
>> point I fully expect pretty much all SVG engines supporting SVG Tiny to
>> implement that specificat
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:59:53 +0100, Doug Schepers wrote:
On another topic, I would like to use Widgets with pure SVG content,
rather than including HTML... I didn't see a clear way to do this, nor
was it explicitly disallowed. I'll review the spec more to see if there
are problems in this reg
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On 1/23/09 2:25 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
>> >
>> >"There may be implementation-specific limits on the range of
>> > integers allowed, and behavior outside such limits is undefined."
>>
>
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On 1/23/09 2:25 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
> >
> >"There may be implementation-specific limits on the range of
> > integers allowed, and behavior outside such limits is undefined."
>
> You should probably tell the HTML5 guys about this too, a
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> My gut feeling is that we run with this known issue; We have a warning
>> in the spec that authors should avoid using file names outside the
>> ASCII range.
>
> I can live with that, as long as the issue has been con
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Ok, as I know little of SVG, I've asked Doug Scheppers to help me
That sounds like an excellent plan. Thank you!
It is, but this affects more than just Zip. See also [3] with the
problems Limewire had in respect to normalization of Unicode on MacOs
X.
Note that this
Hi, Folks-
Boris Zbarsky wrote (on 1/23/09 9:25 AM):
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> That really depends on what the goal is. What _is_ the goal?
>>
>> The goals are as follows:
>> 1. Widget engines optionally support SVG Tiny for the icon format
>> (though they can have the capability to render f
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Ok, that sounds like a completely reasonable proposal. And you are right,
>> I
>> had thought about this in totally the wrong way. I did as you suggested:
>> * widget engines may now support SVG 1.1.
>> * author
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Sort of. We use JAR, not ZIP. Any JAR file is a ZIP file, but not vice
versa. In particular, the JAR spec [1] defines that all non-ASCII bytes
are UTF-8.
That [1] is http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/jar/jar.html
-Boris
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Ok, that sounds like a completely reasonable proposal. And you are right, I
had thought about this in totally the wrong way. I did as you suggested:
* widget engines may now support SVG 1.1.
* authors, however, should try to conform to SVG Tiny 1.2.
* conformance chec
Hi Boris,
On 1/23/09 2:25 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> Ok. I'll need to run this by the working group as I had something like
>> this in very early drafts of the spec and received criticism for being
>> overly prescriptive (It could have been that I wrote the text
>> inc
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Ok. I'll need to run this by the working group as I had something like
this in very early drafts of the spec and received criticism for being
overly prescriptive (It could have been that I wrote the text
incorrectly). Can you please suggest some text that we could use?
Hi Boris,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I've removed it. This may cause implementations to override files
>> on systems that don't support case insensitive file names. This should
>> not be a real problem, as most file system won't let yo
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Ok, I've removed it. This may cause implementations to override files
on systems that don't support case insensitive file names. This should
not be a real problem, as most file system won't let you create files
with the same name but different cases. And, on Windows at leas
Hi Boris,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> A few comments:
>
> 1) In section 7.3, boolean attributes are defined to use case-insensitive
> matching. Why is that? There doesn't seem to be a definition of
> case-insensitive here, which worries me, since case-folding is a
A few comments:
1) In section 7.3, boolean attributes are defined to use
case-insensitive matching. Why is that? There doesn't seem to be a
definition of case-insensitive here, which worries me, since
case-folding is always tricky business (see below). I would suggest
requiring a case-se
Bcc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org, public-b...@w3.org, wai-xt...@w3.org,
public-m...@w3.org
Reply-to: public-webapps@w3.org (archived at [1])
The Web Applications WG [2] explicitly seeks comments from the I18N,
Mobile Web BP, Mobile Web Test Suites and WAI P&F Working Groups
regarding the 22 D
17 matches
Mail list logo
