Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 05:46 +0100 schrieb David Wilson:
> It's easy to see how some naively implemented JS audio widget could
> fetch 200mb over an expensive 3G connection, simply by navigating to
> some site in a background tab (say, by creating an array of elements
> to represent their playl
2009/7/19 Ian Hickson :
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>
>> When script creates an audio element using the "new Audio" constructor,
>> the 'autobuffer' attribute should be automatically set on that element.
>> Presumably scripts will only create audio elements that they actually
>>
Ian Hickson wrote:
...
The other issue is Mark Nottingham's Web Linking draft[2]. It section
6.2, it establishes its own Link Relation Type Registry and the process
by which additional link relations are added. It would seem to me that
it would be prudent to have a single registry and proces
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> [...]
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> > It's clear that, despite the spec would currently encourage this
> > example's markup, it is not a good choice. IMHO, either of these should
> > be used instead:
> >
> > Your 100% satisfa
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
> When script creates an audio element using the "new Audio" constructor,
> the 'autobuffer' attribute should be automatically set on that element.
> Presumably scripts will only create audio elements that they actually
> intend to play.
Done.
On
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Biju wrote:
>
> A web browser with plugin is supposed to work as a seamless integrated
> single system.
> But they are not for security setting UI. Each comes up with their own
> UI to confuse users.
I recommend contacting the browser vendors directly; they would need to
updat
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Some attributes are said to apply to "all elements" when I think "all
> HTML elements" was intended. Specifically this seems to be the case for
> accesskey, draggable, hidden and style, though I may have missed some.
Fixed.
--
Ian Hickson
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, SJ Kissane wrote:
>
> I am concerned by the wording of this section. There are different
> systems of week number -- as far as I can work out, this is the same as
> ISO 8601 week numbering. But it nowhere explicitly says that.
>
> I think, the spec should have a normative re
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Jeremy Keith wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused by the conditions set out at the bottom of the rel
> extensions wiki page:
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
>
> "For the "Status" section to be changed to "Accepted", the proposed keyword
> must either have been through the
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Markus Ernst wrote:
> Ian Hickson schrieb:
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote:
> >
> > > Encouraging use of small print for legalese also encourages this:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Welcome to the BigCo web site. Click to continue.
> > >
> > >
> > > By clicking abo
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Michael Nordman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Michael Nordman wrote:
> > >
> > > What appcache (if any) should the resulting iframes be associated with? I
> > > think per the spec, the answer is none. Is that the correct an
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > I don't understand why it would be more useful. Having an element for
> > the typographic purpose of marking up titles seems more useful than an
> > element for the purpose of indicating what is a ci
12 matches
Mail list logo
