Adrian Sutton wrote:
The issue isn't that it's hard to fix the WYSIWYG editor, the issue is that
it's hard to fix all the rest of the systems the client wants and the fact
that clients tend to want a font menu in their editor otherwise they
completely eliminate it from consideration without
It would be nice if this method described things for image in terms of
.complete. Although I've also heard people suggest they would like this
method to be synchronous when HTMLImageElement is passed (Bjoern, iirc) so
that you don't need the trickery involved to make sure it's already
On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:10:22 +0200, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It would be nice if this method described things for image in terms of
.complete. Although I've also heard people suggest they would like this
method to be synchronous when HTMLImageElement is passed (Bjoern,
The restriction on LABEL behavior is not a clarification, it is a change.
The browser vendor has to choose whether it is compliant with version 4 or
5. Therefore the current behavior can hardly be called a bug. Note that
this change is not reported on the Wiki
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, David Flanagan wrote:
What surprises me about the omission of dashed lines is that every
graphics API I'm familiar with (Xlib, PostScript, Java 2D) supports
dashed lines. Unless there is some important platform out there that
does not support them in
On 09/05/07, David Flanagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, David Flanagan wrote:
What surprises me about the omission of dashed lines is that every
graphics API I'm familiar with (Xlib, PostScript, Java 2D) supports
dashed lines. Unless there is some
Philip,
You have a reasonable point. I still think that an implementation would
be trivial, but you're right that there is more complexity for the
specification than simply defining one more method API. On the other
hand, I think it is legitimate to take the SVG-Tiny route and leave
On 09/05/07, David Flanagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip,
You have a reasonable point. I still think that an implementation would
be trivial, but you're right that there is more complexity for the
specification than simply defining one more method API. On the other
hand, I think it is
The W3C's HTML working group today resolved to start from the current
WHATWG work. Specifically, the group resolved to review our work, and
will probably build on it.
They also resolved to call this work HTML5.
Thus, the Web Applications 1.0 spec is now officially named HTML5!
I have also
