Re: [whatwg] [WebApps] canvas transform()/setTransform()

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, ��߷(KUROSAWA, Takeshi) wrote: > > Web Application 1.0 adds the transform() and the setTransform() to the > canvas 2d context. The conversion of the arguments of these methods to > the matrices is described in the section 3.14.6.1.2. > > > The transform(m11, m12, m21, m2

[whatwg] Requesting information about the use of explicit new lines in title attributes.

As per your request. Requesting information about the new "web-apps" standards point of view about giving a page author the ability to add explicit new lines into a title attribute to be phrased by a browser. Via the title tooltip test suite made by David Hammond (http://www.webdevout.net/testcas

Re: [whatwg] causes unexpected EOF error

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Since doesn't have a closing tag it causes an unexpected end > of file error (missing end tags). I think this is fine, but just wanted > to mention it in case this was overlooked. More importantly, will cause an error along the lines of: e

Re: [whatwg] usemap on input

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > The WF 2.0 spec neither specifies the usemap attribute for the input > element nor documents the lack of it as a change from WF 1.0. WF2 doesn't specify anything that hasn't changed -- it's a delta spec. will be in WA1 when WF2 is integrated with WA

Re: [whatwg] E4X and attribute values

On 1/16/07, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 16, 2007, at 23:02, liorean wrote: > I can't really see a reason not to allow E4X in event handler > attributes My understanding is that E4X parsing is incompatible with normal ECMAScript parsing and, therefore, the ECMAScript parser nee

[whatwg] usemap on input

The WF 2.0 spec neither specifies the usemap attribute for the input element nor documents the lack of it as a change from WF 1.0. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Re: [whatwg] E4X and attribute values

On Jan 16, 2007, at 23:02, liorean wrote: I can't really see a reason not to allow E4X in event handler attributes My understanding is that E4X parsing is incompatible with normal ECMAScript parsing and, therefore, the ECMAScript parser needs to know if E4X is to be enabled. Is this incorr

Re: [whatwg] E4X and attribute values

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:59:56 -, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is E4X allowed in event handler attribute values and in javascript: URIs? If yes, how can a UA know whether the E4X parse mode should be used? This can be explictly stated using Content-Script-Type HTTP header/meta

Re: [whatwg] E4X and attribute values

On 1/16/07, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is E4X allowed in event handler attribute values and in javascript: URIs? If yes, how can a UA know whether the E4X parse mode should be used? For javascript: URIs I guess the mode depends on the UA default. If E4X is enabled in the default,

Re: [whatwg] Problems with the definition of

James Graham wrote: > So, to summarise, is insufficient for extracting useful semantics That's not a fair summary: see the example I gave to Anne van Kesteren of getting back to a Hamlet scene text from Hamlet, I.ii with a mere Google query. It would be more accurate to see could be improved up

[whatwg] E4X and attribute values

Is E4X allowed in event handler attribute values and in javascript: URIs? If yes, how can a UA know whether the E4X parse mode should be used? (It seems to me that it would make sense not to allow E4X in those cases and require the script snippets to call into E4X scripts included using t

Re: [whatwg] Problems with the definition of

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: The /only/ way we will get browsers to display citations in the manner expected by the user is with language-sensitive styling of markup that differentiates the different components of citations (names, article titles, journal titles, page numbers, etc) such as hCite

Re: [whatwg] versus |cite|

Matthew Raymond wrote: >The only real argument against reusing |cite| (while keeping it a > URL) is for semantic purity. That's the point I thought I was going to > have to really fight against. Yet I haven't really heard anyone making > that argument. Instead, the complain about a pound sign t

Re: [whatwg] versus |cite|

Mathew Raymond wrote: > Well, first of all, it doesn't cover cases without hyperlinks: > | Blah, said Baz Anne van Kesteren responded: > I don't think that case is very interesting. Well, even without a URI, user agents could do a crude lookup on the contents of the cite element. For example, a

Re: [whatwg] Problems with the definition of

Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > There are other problems in WA1's current definition of > . It says: > > This is the correct way to do it: > > This is correct!, said Ian. > > Despite this being consistent with the example