On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Source level
The language is en-GB-hixie not en-GB-x-Hixie (as defined in Hixie English
1.0-pre38 :-).
Fixed.
1.9. (and elsewhere)
It appears that conformant is not generally accepted in dictionaries.
(Conforming is.)
It's commonly used these
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
3.6.1
Item 10. There's a comma missing after '[)' and before a modifier.
Fixed.
3.6.1
Example in item 11. Double quote missing in '[n· string'.
Fixed.
5.
Step 5. When XML submission is used, characters that are not XMLChars as per
XML 1.0
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
It still does not make it good UI. The case is similar to a set of radio
buttons with no checked button.
If we make bad UI non-conforming, conformance checkers will be pretty easy
to write...
#!/usr/bin/perl -wT
use strict;
print Your
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've been through this before -- I think it shouldn't
be, ratemy*.com thinks it should be, and there are more of those sites
than there are of me. :-) (Why they don't just use a set of numbered
input type=submits, which
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
At least some things clearly need to be allowed to be checked/selected
and disabled at the same time. In particular, checkboxes really need
this. Allowing this in some cases but not others smacks of trying to
dictate UI policy for content
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Michel Fortin wrote:
Something about the pattern attribute in Web Forms got me thinking:
The regular expression language used for this attribute is the same as that
defined in [ECMA262], except that the pattern attribute implies a ^ at the
start of the pattern and a $
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:57:15 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm reading the spec correctly then pattern is used to
prevent/allow form
submission, and to highlight an invalid entry.
What I am suggesting is a filter that can be matched against for each
keypress
event. If
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, porneL wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:57:15 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm reading the spec correctly then pattern is used to prevent/allow
form
submission, and to highlight an invalid entry.
What I am suggesting is a filter that can be
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Section 3.4.
The repeat-min attribute specifies the number of repetition blocks that
the remove button type will ensure are present each time a block is
removed. Its value must be a positive integer (one or more digits 0-9
interpreted as a base
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 00:11, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Is it conforming for these attributes to appear on elements that do not have
the repeat attribute (with any value; assuming that occurrence with repeat
set to an integer is conforming)?
Hmm.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I hit the counterpart issue with repeat-max at:
http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm
The test case is wrong according to the current working draft, because
the value of repeat-max is '0' in the test case and only
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Even though repeat-max='0' does not make sense if the value permanently
forbids repetition, wouldn't it make sense to allow non- negative integers
so that repetition could be dynamically forbidden or
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Section 5.2.1.
Why isn't the _charset_ field defined to be filled when the submission
type is multipart/form-data?
Because the encoding is given in the parts. See RFC2388.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Earlier I raised the issue that WF 2.0 does not say what should be done
about leap seconds, but I did not suggest a solution. Having read more
about the subject, I suggest that date calculations in WF 2.0 be POSIXly
correct and ignore leap seconds.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michel Fortin wrote:
I'm inclined to think that the best option for WF 2.0 is to require
the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar all the way to 0001-01-01.
What about prior dates?
I don't think we need to support years before 1CE. (Frankly I don't think
we
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This text in section 2.6 doesn't seem to consider alternatives and grouping:
| Thus, using the ^ character anywhere other than at the start of the pattern,
| or the $ character anywhere other than at the end of the pattern, prevents
| the pattern
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=286914
Note comment from the XStandard plugin developers about submitting
form elements inside an OBJECT with content shown by plugin or UA.
I have been discussing this with among others Anne van
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The WF2 spec does not say anything about filtering autocomplete lists on
pattern and Opera 9 does not do it. However, autocomplete entries that
would fail form validation are not particularly useful.
I suggest saying that potential autocomplete
On Wed, 31 May 2006, James Graham wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
The Mozilla guys propose (in bug 339127) to make the accept= attribute on
input elements also apply to types other than type=file, with the same
meaning as we currently have on textarea. Their particular use case is to
use this
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
On 01/02/06, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already brought up this issue because of the kayak.com search
fields with a maxlength smaller than the length of the strings
scripts would insert into the input
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Ric Hardacre wrote:
When using checkboxes in forms i find myself doing this
input type=checkbox name=foo value=true
input type=hidden name=foo value=false
and retrieving the value from the posted form data a bit like this
if( checkbox.value == false )then
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On May 26, 2006, at 09:23, Matthew Raymond wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
The WF2 spec does not say anything about filtering autocomplete lists
on pattern and Opera 9 does not do it. However, autocomplete entries
that would fail form validation
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Christoph P�per wrote:
*Henri Sivonen*:
2.4.
Does ISO 8601 define how its flavor of the Gregorian calendar rolls
backwards all the way to, say, 1900 or 1 AD?
By default ISO 8601 uses the proleptic Gregorian calendar, i.e. there are no
null days
Ian Hickson wrote:
I understand (and agree) that WF2 disagrees with CSS3UI and Selectors
here. I believe the error is in CSS3UI and in Selectors.
I would agree with that, although I think we disagree as to what the
error is.
Having them be orthogonal is far more useful to authors. For
FYI: There is now a version of Web Forms 2.0 with the W3C draft livery:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/web-forms-2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
The intent is for the W3C Web App Formats working group [1] to publish
this as a W3C working draft to garner
* Ian Hickson wrote:
2.14.
Authors may include an accept attribute on textarea elements to indicate
the
type of content expected. User agents may use this attribute to provide more
appropriate editors, syntax highlighting, spelling checkers, etc. The value
of
the attribute must be a
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:40:53 -0700, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/001.htm
http://webforms2.testsuite.org/repetition/attributes/repeat-max/003.htm
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Ian Hickson wrote:
2.14.
Authors may include an accept attribute on textarea elements to indicate
the
type of content expected. User agents may use this attribute to provide
more
appropriate editors, syntax highlighting, spelling
* Ian Hickson wrote:
I think we're talking about different parts of the spec. The accept
attribute in 2.14 is for textarea and is new to WF2. It is vaguely
defined and has no UA conformance requirements. It is mostly intended to
spurr implementors into coming up with new interaction models for
Aaron Leventhal wrote:
So you are saying this should be mapped to assistive technologies via
the CSS3 appearance property or via special values in the class attribute?
No, actually, I believe I made it clear in the last post that I
prefer predefined class names as the best way to address
A lot of work as already been done by the W3C XSL WG on calendar (and even negative year in needed)
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#lang-cal-country
Cheers
On 8/15/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michel Fortin wrote: I'm inclined to think that the best option for WF
For anyone interested in seeing WF2 implemented in mozilla.org code, I
invite you to read and comment on
http://wiki.mozilla.org/DOM:Web_Forms_2.0 . Please bear in mind this
is intended as an internal design document, and this is very much a
first draft - so it will change!
--
The first step in
32 matches
Mail list logo
