Hello.
I've been looking through the HTML5 working draft and I've been trying
to find a reference for the use of the current PICS labels.
I noticed that the new specs only give three accepted keywords for the
http-equiv attribute, which doesn't include the current "pics-label":
http://www.wh
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Chris Chiasson wrote:
>
> So, have the HTML 5 people already made up their minds, where the
> discussion that continues today has no chance of maintaining the XML
> serialization?
Nothing is yet set in stone for HTML5 [1].
The XHTML variant of HTML isn't going away, though.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Shannon wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > We're not talking about making class meaningful. I'm not sure I
> > understand what you are arguing against at this point.
> >
> > The proposal is just that authors should use class="" to distinguish
> > the various ways they use
Ian Hickson wrote:
We're not talking about making class meaningful. I'm not sure I understand
what you are arguing against at this point.
The proposal is just that authors should use class="" to distinguish the
various ways they use so that they can (e.g.) style them differently.
Where is
On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
At the moment people have proposed that the API be asynchronous, and
some
people are ok with that, but other people are strongly opposed to
it. I am
not sure where to go with this. Input from other browser vendors --
yourself and WebKit in p
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Sunava Dutta wrote:
>
> Just following up to my email a few weeks back regarding cross document
> messaging.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Feb/0024.html
>
> We'd love to know whether our proposed changes here (in the rewrite) can
> be accept
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Shannon wrote:
>
> It's alternative because it attempts to actually "classify" something
> rather than generically label it. I agree that class should only do the
> first and I do this with my own code but most designers do not. As far
> as the web design world is concerned
Tina Holmboe wrote:
> If we wish to reproduce, as you mention, a work in which we can't
> really decide what the best /structural/ element sould be, then CSS
> comes to the rescue.
CSS is for optional presentational suggestions. When the issue is
presentation itself, it should no be a matt
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> The draft currently says that "represents small print".
That's just confusing. The expression "small print" is often used
figuratively to mean 'less important' _or_ 'less noticeable'. If you
don't mean either of them, don't use the phrase. Just say that
indicates
On Apr 15, 2008, at 15:38, David Poehlman wrote:
described by is not equivalent and I believe this point has already
been
made. Legend if used properly is not equivalent either.
Right. Describedby, alt, title and legend of surrounding figure aren't
exactly the same concept. They are in th
On Apr 14, 2008, at 20:48, Jim Jewett wrote:
-- Note -- HTML5 expands the use of LEGEND -- there may be cases where
alt is not useful *because* it is redundant with LEGEND. This case
may not be covered in current WCAG Recommendations.
Also note
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsiv
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Elliotte Harold wrote:
>> It occurs to me that one of the most frequently used nits of
>> pseudo-markup is to indicate sarcasm. For example,
>>
>> Yeah, George W. Bush has been such a great president.
>>
>> Should we perhaps formalize this? Is there any be
Tina Holmboe wrote:
>> So means less important than normal (default) importance of
>> plain text, if I've understood correctly when used outside or
>
> No. This is a misunderstanding. The SMALL-element signify smaller
> text, visually.
Or, to put it in other words, characters in smaller phy
I'm still wondering if HTML5 should define an element for less than
normal importance or emphasis.
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005, fantasai wrote:
>> # Note: The small element does not "de-emphasise" or lower the
>> # importance of text emphasised by the em element or marked as
>>
Ironically (given that you proposed using rel="" instead) as far as I know
Google has never based anything on class values, but has used rel=""
values (like rel="nofollow").
Which indicates to me that they were concerned enough about
class="nofollow" to not use it. I personally think that "n
15 matches
Mail list logo
