I think the parsing algorithm should take the prompt= attribute of
isindex in account. It replaces the string of characters placed before
the input element with its contents. (In that case there will be no
characters after the isindex element.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:53:31 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think the parsing algorithm should take the prompt= attribute of
isindex in account. It replaces the string of characters placed before
the input element with its contents. (In that case there will be no
Submission of an isindex element is different compared to normal
form submission with a text input element, only the value part is
submitted.
This parsing definition:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#isindex
means that forminput name=isindex/form also should only submit
the
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:32:57 +0100, Martijn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Submission of an isindex element is different compared to normal
form submission with a text input element, only the value part is
submitted.
This parsing definition:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#isindex
Gervase Markham wrote:
James Graham wrote:
[1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html
What a useful URL. Where in that data is the basis for this hi or m
element which has caused so much discussion recently?
Since it is designed as an annotation to a page rather than a part
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think it would be more consistent to have .defaultOpen besides .open
to reflect the content attribute. .open would then reflect the current
state. Consistent with form controls, that is.
I intentionally broke consistency here to avoid the mess
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
Why do we need X/HTML 5? When did this need become apparent?
HTML started as a document language for scientist to share their
work. It evolved over time; for example the img element was added,
forms were added, WYSIWYG features were added,
4. One of the biggest problems with HTML is that content authors can get away
with writing tag soup. As a result, most content authors don't feel the need
to write markup to specification. When markup is not written to specification,
CSS may not get applied correctly, JavaScript may not execute
...
10. In the minds of most people, HTML is dead and X/HTML 5 is perceived as an
attempt to resurrect it. Given this perception, how can you succeed in
marketing HTML to consumers (those who build Web sites)?
Aren't those minds of the people who sell XHTML tools with false
statements like
Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
(NB I'm just another correspondent, not an official WHATWG voice or
anything.)
Why not put an end to tag soup by requiring user-agents to only
accept markup written to specification?
Problem 1: Even if HTML5 were /not/ intended to be backwards compatible,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:01:14 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be more consistent to have .defaultOpen besides .open
to reflect the content attribute. .open would then reflect the current
state. Consistent with form controls, that is.
I intentionally broke
Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
4. One of the biggest problems with HTML is that content authors can
get away with writing tag soup. As a result, most content authors
don't feel the need to write markup to specification. When markup is
not written to specification, CSS may not get applied
On Feb 21, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
4. One of the biggest problems with HTML is that content authors can
get away with writing tag soup. As a result, most content authors
don't feel the need to write markup to specification. When markup is
not written to
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
4. One of the biggest problems with HTML is that content authors can get
away with writing tag soup.
Is it really a problem? Or is it the reason the Web is so wildly
successful? Would the Web have taken off in the same way if it worked
Thank you Ian. Just one follow-up question. You wrote:
...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows
how to do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
Is it due to a flaw in HTML that it is difficult to build authoring tools, such
as WYSIWYG editors, that generate markup
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows how to
do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
Is it due to a flaw in HTML that it is difficult to build authoring
tools, such as WYSIWYG editors, that generate
Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
Thank you Ian. Just one follow-up question. You wrote:
...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows how
to do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
Is it due to a flaw in HTML that it is difficult to build authoring
tools, such as
Le 2007-02-20 à 19:05, Ian Hickson a écrit :
The proposal to have predefined class names is still very much in
the air,
we're mostly waiting for author and implementation feedback to see
if it
is workable. Currently the HTML5 spec leaves a number of things
unanswered
(like what happens if
Le 21 févr. 2007 à 09:05, Ian Hickson a écrit :
If we want to make HTML5 successful, we have to make sure the browser
vendors pay attention to it. Any requirements that make their
market share
go down relative to browsers who aren't following the spec will
immediately be ignored.
it seems
Le 21 févr. 2007 à 11:39, Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows
how to
do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
Is it due to a flaw in HTML that it is difficult to build authoring
Le 21 févr. 2007 à 11:40, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
It's not so much a flaw in HTML's design, as it is the refusal of
popular WYSIWYG editor vendors to replace common presentational
UIs, such as font styles and colours, with much more useful
semantic UIs. I don't believe it's particularly
At 21:21 -0500 UTC, on 2007-02-20, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
[...]
Is it due to a flaw in HTML that it is difficult to build authoring tools,
such as WYSIWYG editors, that generate markup rich in semantics, embody
best-practices and can be easily used by non-technical people?
I think
22 matches
Mail list logo
