None of Opera 9.02, Firefox 2.0, IE7 and Safari 2.0.4 implement
colspan=0 as specified in HTML 4.01. Trident, Presto and WebKit at
least agree on what to do with it: they treat it like colspan=1.
I suggest that only positive integers be conforming and that non-
conforming values be treated
Ian Hickson wrote:
Some pages even have completely bogus namespaces on the root html
element, which would make the entire page screw up.
Let the page screw up. The author will notice it and fix it. That's like
saying some people mistype table as tabel and therefore we shoudl accept
both
* The height and width attributes as defined are completely
presentational. I don't really see any value in keeping them. Now I
suppose they have to be supported anyway, but so does body bgcolor=.
I disagree. Specifying the size is very good for incremental rendering,
but the alternatives
On Nov 4, 2006, at 08:37, Ian Hickson wrote:
I'm thinking of only allowing integer values, and requiring them to be
equal to the dimensions of the image, if present (and requiring
both to
be present if either is present). Would people be ok with that?
What about non-square pixels in the
Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[width and height attribute on the img element]
I'm thinking of only allowing integer values, and requiring them to be
equal to the dimensions of the image, if present (and requiring both to
be present if either is present). Would people be ok with that?
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:38:37 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Regarding the alt attribute, wouldn't it make sense to just allow it to
be omitted? In terms of meaning it seems the same.
I have always considered requiring the alt attribute resulting in the
use of alt= as an
On Nov 2, 2006, at 00:17, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:55:58 +0100, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract,
what do people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
I think the fundamental point is
On Nov 4, 2006, at 13:07, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, dolphinling wrote:
I'm not saying don't add MathML to HTML. I'm saying don't add
namespace syntax to HTML.
As I've said elsewhere, I find this viewpoint simply
incomprehensible. Namespaces are ugly,
On Nov 4, 2006, at 17:19, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think that text/html conformance needs to be defined in such a
way that everything that is meaningful can be conveyed through the
SAX2 ContentHandler interface (with qNames ignored) without
violating any explicit or implicit parts of the API
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Note that what you quoted above was not about throwing away namespaces
but about not introducing namespace *syntax* to the text/html
serialization. In fact, HTML5 requires UAs to put HTML elements in the
XHTML namespace.
If all we're doing is HTML, fine. However people
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:37:32 +0600, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* The height and width attributes as defined are completely
presentational. I don't really see any value in keeping them. Now I
suppose they have to be supported anyway, but so does body bgcolor=.
I'm thinking of only
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:42:34 +0600, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If img without alt is defined to mean that the image is semantically
valuable but without an alternative text, then the problem is that we
need to distinguish between empty and omitted alt in DOM somehow.
That's easy
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:43:02 +0600, Spartanicus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with allowing omission of alt depends on the meaning of
img without alt. If img without alt is defined to mean the same as
img with alt=, then the problem is that all cases when people omit
the alt
Paul Topping wrote:
Elements whose namespaces aren't known should be handled like any other
unknown HTML element. I believe the common way for user agents to handle
an unknown element is basically to ignore the tag and its attributes and
treat any text between start and end tags as if the tags
At 17:53 +0100 UTC, on 2006-10-31, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
[...]
W3C recently published a proposal on how to achieve
footnote/endnote presentations using the same markup [1]. The proposal
is quite simple. Given this markup:
div class=note../div
you would achieve footnoes with:
.note {
My two cents as you say:2006/11/4, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(I couldn't work out what thread this was a continuation to -- the firstmessage below didn't have a Re: in the subject line, and I can't findany other thread that used the word hazard. So I don't know exactly
what this thread was
Here is the document that explains prototype.js and its extensionshttp://www.sergiopereira.com/articles/prototype.js.html
2006/11/4, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:(I couldn't work out what thread this was a continuation to -- the first
message below didn't have a Re: in the subject line, and I
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:11:00 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that's accurate; but there is new opportunity here. CSS, XSLT, and
JavaScript present the option to specify styling for unknown elements,
in the same or different namespaces.
Must-ignore could become
On Nov 3, 2006, at 07:22, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
It's not only about printing-while-downloading. It's about the
ability to print an arbitrarily long document without consuming
infinite memory for DOM.
What kind of use is this about? Is this about XHTML-Print-type stuff
or about
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:12:29 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that what you quoted above was not about throwing away namespaces
but about not introducing namespace *syntax* to the text/html
serialization. In fact, HTML5 requires UAs to put HTML elements in the
XHTML
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I've no idea about XForms, but the plan for MathML is that you can write
it without bothering about namespaces, but that it ends up having
namespaces in the DOM.
Then this is what I feared, and it's not sensible. Enabling mixed
HTML/MathML to be processed with
Is there a reason why the definition of space characters does not
match the XML 1.0 and RELAX NG definition of white space (space, tab,
CR, LF) but also includes (line tabulation and form feed)? Is the
deviation from XML 1.0 needed for backwards compatibility with text/
html UAs?
--
Henri
On Nov 5, 2006, at 00:23, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:56:35 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've no idea about XForms, but the plan for MathML is that you
can write it without bothering about namespaces, but that it
ends up
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Anne is talking about the text/html serialization, which is supposed to
be parsed using an HTML5 parser. It is a special-purpose alternative
serialization for a subset of possible infosets--like RELAX NG Compact
Syntax. Please ignore the superficial syntactic similarity
Elliotte Harold wrote:
If all we're doing is HTML, fine. However people are now in this thread
talking about putting MathML into this.
There has been plenty of discussion about introducing MathML-like markup
into HTML 5. Although, personally, I'm not convinced that it's a good
idea. This
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:06:23 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Douglas Crockford wrote:
This is a convenience issue. Having toJSONString as a builtin is a
convenience, removing the need to load json.js.
Assuming the thread is about introducing a way to convert
I think conforming text/html documents should not be allowed to parse into
a DOM that contains characters that are not allowed in XML 1.0. [...] I am
inclined to prefer [...] U+FFFD
I perfectly agree. (Actually, i think that U+7F (delete) and the C1 control
characters
should be excluded
On Nov 5, 2006, at 01:19, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Anne is talking about the text/html serialization, which is
supposed to be parsed using an HTML5 parser. It is a special-
purpose alternative serialization for a subset of possible
infosets--like RELAX NG Compact
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I disagree. Specifying the size is very good for incremental rendering,
but the alternatives are awful.
1. img ... style=height: 100px; width: 100px;
The style attribute is far more presentational than the height and width
attributes.
I don't see how either is
On Nov 1, 2006, at 11:55 AM, James Graham wrote:
...
To take a slight detour into the (hopefully not too) abstract, what do
people think the fundamental point of semantics in HTML is?
To maximize the utility (usefulness) of documents using it. But this is
a complicated function.
* Less
On Oct 31, 2006, at 7:20 AM, David Walbert wrote:
...
Footnotes and endnotes are identical in content in the context of a
print document and I am not certain how they'd differ even
presentationally on a web page, so yes, I think those can be
considered identical in terms of markup.
...
On Nov 1, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 1 nov. 2006 à 22:01, Jonathan Worent a écrit :
...
or make the association implicit by using the for attribute
embed id=funnyVid ...
caption for=funnyVidA funny video of a man being hit in the groin
by a football/caption
That would work
On Nov 1, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Christoph Päper wrote:
The second to last example should probably better read:
varE/var = varm/var · varcvarsup2/sup
or maybe, as the speed of light is a constant,
varE/var = varm/var · csup2/sup.
...
Is that equation ever legitimately rendered (in physics
On Oct 31, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:54:12 +0600, David Walbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I would never want to require that a footnote be read to anyone,
thereby interrupting the text -- it is in the nature of a footnote to
be optional reading and
34 matches
Mail list logo
