On 9/11/07, Dimitri Glazkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since, AFAIK, the fragment identifier is not passed onto the server by
the UA, I can't see how an application could be designed with proper
noscript degradation and reliance frament ids for query communication.
Besides, using query
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:22:59 +0200, Robert O'Callahan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/11/07, Dimitri Glazkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since, AFAIK, the fragment identifier is not passed onto the server by
the UA, I can't see how an application could be designed with proper
noscript degradation
I've been sitting on this thought for almost a week, and with no time
in sight to formalize it into some sort of a proposal, I believe it'd
be better just to blurt it out here. Alex Russell's post was the
proverbial straw (http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=623#more-623).
Overall, I think Ian's
On Sep 13, 2007 4:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the query parameter use case. If you have a web
page foo.cgi?page=x wouldn't that page also be simply the offline page?
What exactly is the scenario in some more detail?
I feel like me and the other
On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
They could rewrite bugzilla to use fragment identifiers instead of
querystrings, but then bug shortcuts on the web would not work with
the offline-enabled application.
If you're designing a new application, even one that works both
online
On 9/13/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bugzilla scenario is a good one. Someone wants to offline-enable
bugzilla. They could rewrite bugzilla to use fragment identifiers
instead of querystrings, but then bug shortcuts on the web would not
work with the offline-enabled
The following has a rant flavor to it, but I am hoping you'll find it
helpful in the thought process.
Distinct, server-reaching URLs (no fragment identifiers) for each page
in an web application are a _good_thing_. Packing the whole
application into one document and managing history with id
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:21:21 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would've loved it if Google Reader had a distinct URL for each click
I make on the page, and I am sure Google Reader devs would've loved it
too. Except they also would've loved not having to worry about the
On Sep 6, 2007 5:46 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We provide an API that can add files to the cache, and that can be queried
to determine if we are in upgrader mode or not, and that can swap in a
new cache without reloading the page, during the 'upgrading' event.
Given this, and the
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Aaron Boodman wrote:
The bugzilla scenario is a good one. Someone wants to offline-enable
bugzilla. They could rewrite bugzilla to use fragment identifiers
instead of querystrings, but then bug shortcuts on the web would not
work with the offline-enabled application.
On Sep 13, 2007 1:59 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but what are you proposing to _solve_ this? There's no difference
between the following two models as I see it:
* Download an HTML page for each bug
* Download a single page to generate the bug pages plus one data
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Ok, but what are you proposing to _solve_ this? There's no difference
between the following two models as I see it:
* Download an HTML page for each bug
* Download a single page to generate the bug pages plus one data
page per bug
Section 2.3
I didn't get any responses on this. It doesn't have any cool like ajax
offline; it is a more fundamental (basic) requirement.
There is a shortcoming in the specification.
2.3. Extensions to the select element
Previous
Regarding the [type] attribute:
interface HTMLTextAreaElement : HTMLElement {
attribute DOMString defaultValue;
readonly attribute HTMLFormElement form;
attribute DOMString accessKey;
attribute long
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Garrett Smith wrote:
Regarding the [type] attribute:
interface HTMLTextAreaElement : HTMLElement {
attribute DOMString defaultValue;
readonly attribute HTMLFormElement form;
attribute
I found a few mistakes in the spec.
===
5.1. Successful form controls
The controls that are successful are those that are included in the
submission (in the form data set) when their form is submitted.
All form controls are successful
On 9/13/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Garrett Smith wrote:
snipola
(WF2 is just a delta spec, it doesn't define anything that is already in
HTML4 and DOM2 HTML. When WF2 is merged with the rest of HTML5, it will be
turned into a real spec.)
There isn't any
It appears that there is a _DOM_ attribute type [1], but not a _content_
attribute type [2].
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#HTML-HTMLTextAreaElement-type
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#h-17.7
On 9/13/07, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 9/13/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Garrett Smith wrote:
snipola
(WF2 is just a delta spec, it doesn't define anything that is already in
HTML4 and DOM2 HTML. When WF2 is merged with the rest of HTML5, it will be
19 matches
Mail list logo
