Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
Improving on the legacy, proprietary DOM just isn't feasible, imo.
Are there particular parts that overlap between IE's DOM and the
standard DOM where IE's implementation is non-compliant?
If not, why can't IE simply support both sets of methods at the same
time?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:15:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
I
2007/3/14, Anne van Kesteren:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:15:12 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:17:48 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
They don't conflict. They are both applied. base is the document's
base URI, and xml:base is the base URI of the element it is applied on.
What about:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
I
Le 2007-03-14 à 1:23, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
Hi,
The spec currently defines most embedding elements (img, iframe,
embed, object, video and canvas) as strictly inline level and thus
only allows them to be used in contexts where strictly inline level
content may be used.
I think these
The most common use case for href= on every element seems to be about
removing lots of characters when creating a navigation menu or a blog roll
or similar list. So instead of typing
ul
lia href=test/a
...
you would type
ul
li href=test
...
Maybe we can change the
L. David Baron on 2007-03-13:
I tend to think it would be good that new uses of URIs/IRIs document that
they are really IRIs and therefore this reverse-encoding behavior should
not be used, but instead encoding should be done as UTF-8.
You cannot have UTF-8 encoding just for the URIs/IRIs,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:01:38 +0100, Matthew Ratzloff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Web has done great so far without it? When strict mode was
introduced, all existing websites didn't suddenly start rendering under
it. It was opt-in. Versioning is just a formalized way of opting into a
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
Improving on the legacy, proprietary DOM just isn't feasible, imo.
On 14/03/07, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there particular parts that overlap between IE's DOM and the
standard DOM where IE's implementation is non-compliant?
Several, yeah. Most
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:16:49 +0100, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the original question wasn't about versioning in particular as
much as it was Microsoft asking developers (not spec writers) for
something, anything, that they can use to tell whether the author has
written the document
liorean wrote:
Well, the original question wasn't about versioning in particular as
much as it was Microsoft asking developers (not spec writers) for
something, anything, that they can use to tell whether the author has
written the document for HTML5
I could well have missed this, but has
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:47:01 +0100, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the original question wasn't about versioning in particular as
much as it was Microsoft asking developers (not spec writers) for
something, anything, that they can use to tell whether the author has
written the
For the given use case:
header
h1img src=/images/logo alt=Company Name/h1
object data=flash/object
/header
I think figure is in appropriate. The spec says: 'The |figure
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#figure0| element
represents a paragraph
/20070314-invented-tags/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#notes-invalid-docs
--
Robert http://robertdot.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
I could well have missed this, but has Microsoft actually asked for
this? I didn't hear them ask for it, but I haven't read every message in
the thread.
I posted a link to at least one instance where Chris Wilson of the IE Team
asked for an additional standards
On 14 Mar 2007, at 15:16, liorean wrote:
This is a switch out of backwards-compatibility-hell for a single
specific browser they are asking for, not something any other browser
vendor should have to worry about.
Other browsers introduced quirks mode to match buggy behaviour of
others –
is a part of the web standards movement, I would say
that authors worth their salt will code against both implementations and
specifications.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the other points made in this thread.
[1] http://whatwg.robertdot.org/files/20070314-invented-tags/
[2] http
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:13:14 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a switch out of backwards-compatibility-hell for a single
specific browser they are asking for, not something any other browser
vendor should have to worry about.
Other browsers introduced quirks mode to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:33:54 +0100, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The only way to not break 50% of the web is to invent a new mode that
gives the IE developers a blank sheet they can begin to draw on.
FWIW, I think the 50% figure is incorrect. According to [1], 90% of the
web
liorean wrote:
Well, the original question wasn't about versioning in particular as
much as it was Microsoft asking developers (not spec writers) for
something, anything, that they can use to tell whether the author has
written the document for HTML5 and more important the standard DOM, so
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:33:54 +0100, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The only way to not break 50% of the web is to invent a new mode that
gives the IE developers a blank sheet they can begin to draw on.
FWIW, I think the 50% figure is incorrect. According to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:25:08 +0100, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there particular parts that overlap between IE's DOM and the
standard DOM where IE's implementation is non-compliant?
Several, yeah. Most important is the events model.
Thanks for pointing it out. The handling of
Anne van Kesteren Wrote
If for Internet Explorer having
a real standards mode is unavoidable for some reason I'd suggest (and
have) that they use !doctype html in text/html and XML in general to
trigger it.
I'd love to use their super-standards mode in HTML4 and / or XHTML. Or
maybe
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:17:48 +0100, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
base href=http://www.example.org/; xml:base=/bar /
I suppose xml:base= should affect href=.
The XML Base[1] specification says:
The base URI for a URI reference appearing in any other attribute value,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:40:04 +0100, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How about this variation:
head xml:base=bar/
base href=foo/ /
/head
Is the [EMAIL PROTECTED] resolved to absolute using [EMAIL PROTECTED]:base or
not?
I'd say it is. At least according to XML Base. The HTML
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:40:04 +0100, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How about this variation:
head xml:base=bar/
base href=foo/ /
/head
Is the [EMAIL PROTECTED] resolved to absolute using [EMAIL PROTECTED]:base or
not?
I'd say it is. At least according to XML Base. The HTML
* Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
Let's say the document from my example was located on
'http://users.example.org/bob/'. According to the XML Base specification,
the initial base URI of the document (in this example) is «the URI used to
retrieve the entity». Since 'xml:base' affects base, and not the
I am trying to put together a demo for Web Forms 2.0 where each row
has a product name, quantity and unit price, and there is a summary
field at the end of the form showing the total price.
I have been able to get the repetition to work fine, once I realized
that the thead and tbody elements
On Wednesday 2007-03-14 15:20 +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
L. David Baron on 2007-03-13:
I tend to think it would be good that new uses of URIs/IRIs document that
they are really IRIs and therefore this reverse-encoding behavior should
not be used, but instead encoding should be done as
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Dave Raggett wrote:
What I haven't yet worked out is how to address the fields in each row
from the onforminput event handler set on the form element.
[...]
alert(rows = + form.row[0].item.value);
That should be form[row0.item].value.
The [foo] bit in the name=
* L. David Baron wrote:
If we say they're IRIs then the encoding step is always encoding to
UTF-8. But the traditional behavior for URIs has been to encode
based on the encoding of the document, which requires tracking, for
every URI, what the encoding of the document, style sheet, or script
that
liorean wrote:
Well, the original question wasn't about versioning in particular as
much as it was Microsoft asking developers (not spec writers) for
something, anything, that they can use to tell whether the author has
written the document for HTML5
On 14/03/07, Elliotte Harold [EMAIL
On Wednesday 2007-03-14 20:16 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Opera, at least for a considerable amount of time, used UTF-8 for
the whole reference, I think independently of encodings, domains,
and other environment variables. Mozilla was incompatible with that
for a long time, always using the
Colin Lieberman wrote:
For the given use case:
header
h1img src=/images/logo alt=Company Name/h1
object data=flash/object
/header
I think figure is in appropriate. The spec says: 'The |figure| element
represents a paragraph consisting of embedded content and a caption.'
and from a
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
If it is, then when looking at links inside head, relative URIs are
resolved using a base of bar/foo/bar/ (taking [EMAIL PROTECTED]:base into
account twice: once to resolve [EMAIL PROTECTED], which sets the document's
base URI, and then relative to that base URI to
Great example.
(http://www.radio-canada.ca/arts-spectacles/PlusArts/2007/03/13/003-viacom_youtube.asp)
My reading is that one would use figure as the block-level parent of
the second image, where the first image could happily be inline.
Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2007-03-14 à 16:24, Lachlan
liorean wrote:
Well, I have several issues with that:
- First of all, that developers have low awareness of the HTTP side of
the web. Most web developers are happily ignorant about HTTP headers,
and even if they know about them, it's mostly limited to some specific
problem, such as cache
Hi,
I have tried simple styling of WF2 elements in Opera 9.10 implementation
Only colour and background-color.
And found some heterogenity.
Try {color:red; background-color:green} on input type=datetime-local and
on input type=week, gives you different results - week accepts
background color,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Martin Hassman wrote:
Try {color:red; background-color:green} on input type=datetime-local
and on input type=week, gives you different results - week accepts
background color, datetime-local ignores. So I looked in WF2 spec. for
any mention about forms styling. Didn't
Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2007-03-14 ? 16:24, Lachlan Hunt a ?crit :
Even if figure were allowed to be used without legend, what would
be the point? That would be no better than just adding an
extraneous wrapper div around the object just to work around the
content model restrictions.
* Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I think we want to make video a first class citizen of the web. That
means, IMHO, that there must be a simple way to add video to HTML
pages. I don't think one shoulr rely on other languages for this,
although I'm perfectly happy supporting those other languages as well.
Mouseover/out events will trigger when elements contained inside the
EventTarget are hovered, and then bubble up. This is contrary to the most
obvious interpretation, as you are still inside (over) the targeted
element. IE supports two events, mouseenter[1] and mouseleave[2], which
solve
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:40 +0100, Bill Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2007-03-14 ? 16:24, Lachlan Hunt a ?crit :
Even if figure were allowed to be used without legend, what would be
the point? That would be no better than just adding an extraneous
wrapper
Can't you just return false from an event handler to prevent further
bubbling?
On 15 Mar 2007, at 00:30, Magnus Kristiansen wrote:
Mouseover/out events will trigger when elements contained inside
the EventTarget are hovered, and then bubble up. This is contrary
to the most obvious
The following individuals may or may not have agreed to the W3C
Patent Policy regarding the Web Forms 2.0 specification:
Andreas
dolphinling
fantasai
Grey
Josh Aas
Christopher Aillon
Jonny Axelsson
Stuart Ballard
David Baron
Ian Bicking
Christian Biesinger
Mark Birbeck
Susan Borgrink
Bert Bos
On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:59 PM, Matthew Raymond wrote:
If your name is on the list above, please agree to the license
so we
can circumvent the patent policy issue in the HTML WG. Let me know if
you've already agreed to the policy so I can take you off the list.
I can't find an easy way to
- Original Message -
From: Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Colin Lieberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level
I have no
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
Strictly speaking HTML4 does not dictate inline nature of the image.
The only place I've found is this:
The IMG element has no content; it is *usually* replaced inline by the
image
designated by the src attribute. [1]
This phrase use word usually that imply
On Wednesday 2007-03-14 21:59 -0400, Matthew Raymond wrote:
The following individuals may or may not have agreed to the W3C
Patent Policy regarding the Web Forms 2.0 specification:
[...]
If your name is on the list above, please agree to the license so we
can circumvent the patent policy
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:28:12 -0700, L. David Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 2007-03-14 21:59 -0400, Matthew Raymond wrote:
The following individuals may or may not have agreed to the W3C
Patent Policy regarding the Web Forms 2.0 specification:
[...]
If your name is on the
- Original Message -
From: Bill Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Colin Lieberman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg]
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 22:12 -0700, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
[...]
Anyway, Opera in W3C abides by the W3C patent policy, and has already made the
relevant commitment to the WAF group, which has already been working on WF2.
FYI, W3C keeps public record of patent policy status for each WG,
52 matches
Mail list logo
