On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
That's what the class attribute is for.
What's the difference then between mark and span then? I mean,
does
the mark element provide anything that span with an appropriate
class wouldn't?
A default style when there's no CSS support, support
The spec already describes how to do footnotes:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#footnotes
Yes, but this is a theoretical explanation that does not provide a
consistent, practical solution.
As the mark element has different usages defined on it already why not
Mark Nottingham wrote:
...
Try what I did with hinclude http://www.mnot.net/javascript/hinclude/;
write a javascript library to handle a declarative syntax, and have it
gracefully degrade once the browsers handle it natively. If the markup
is declarative, it doesn't matter if it's in HTML5 or
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Andy Lyttle wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
That's what the class attribute is for.
What's the difference then between mark and span then? I mean,
does the mark element provide anything that span with an
appropriate class wouldn't?
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Quoting the spec:
An e-mail address, following the format of the addr-spec token defined in
RFC 2822 section 3.4.1 [RFC2822], but excluding the CFWS subtoken
everywhere, and excluding the FWS subtoken everywhere except in the
quoted-string
Yes, but this is a theoretical explanation that does not provide a
consistent, practical solution.
I don't understand why these solutions aren't consistent or practical.
First of all, the spec admits it itself:
HTML does not have a dedicated mechanism for marking up footnotes. Here are
the
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but this is a theoretical explanation that does not provide a
consistent, practical solution.
I don't understand why these solutions aren't consistent or practical.
First of all, the spec admits it itself:
HTML does
Grouping and such is a stylistic concern, though - as long as the document
expresses a footnote semantic, that's all it has to do. For the rest, we have
a CSS Module that will cover that area, the Generated and Replaced Content
module [1]. By an astonishing coincidence, the editor of this
In the add type to mark element discussion which I started, a side
argument about ids and classes was brought up.
I conveyed my opinion that I think classes should only be used as style
handles and not to convey extra semantic meaning.
The HTML4 spec states:
The class attribute has several
First of all, I'd like to avoid any missunderstandings: I have nothing
against the mark element itself; although I'm afraid my previous
e-mails may lead to think otherwise. It could be a really good
addition to HTML but, IMHO, it isn't yet, and I'm trying to show why I
think so.
On Sat, Nov 1,
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Pentasis wrote:
In the add type to mark element discussion which I started, a side
argument about ids and classes was brought up.
I conveyed my opinion that I think classes should only be used as style
handles and not to convey extra semantic meaning.
The HTML4
(In the interests of avoiding cross-posting, I have only sent this e-mail
to the whatwg list. The original e-mails were also crossposted to the IETF
URI list and the rest-discuss list.)
This might be a good time to bring the FAQ to people's attention -- it
covers what we ask people to go
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
I think some changes are required to make WF2 more web-compatible. In
particular, we need a clean way JS can override WF2's validation.
Cancelling an invalid event just prevents the UA's built-in message - we
need something that makes
13 matches
Mail list logo
