On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
That sounds to me like a good reason to declare a freeze at last
call, and release an immutable beta 1 on which comments can be
made. Then close the comment period on
Manu Sporny wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Problem: A Kitchen Sink Specification
Ian recently implemented a way to hide or highlight the UA guidelines
that confuse so many more casual readers. Does this help? (I know it
helps me. ^_^)
If I knew it existed it might have helped a bit. Even now
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
“When people's opinions are ultimately rejected, it is not without
due consideration first.”
The word “consider” is used inconsistently, and the result is
confusion. I am willing to believe the confusion isn’t deliberate.
In some
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting. Can you expand
on this? Are these meant to be private and only shown to Ian? Shown to
everything who views the spec (optionally, of course)? Sent to the
mailing list?
If
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:44:55 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Joseph Pecoraro wrote:
Alt-Double Click doesn't sound very discoverable. Even if I knew that
shortcut I'd probably forget at some point. Maybe having something
position:fixed would be better because
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:56:15 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
From what I heard so far it is there because of document.all. If
document.all does indeed need to return a separate object as HTML5
suggests we can probably remove it from HTMLCollection in
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
Ian gives more careful consideration and more thorough responses to comments
than any other specification editor I have seen in action. I've commented on
many W3C standards and many times I've seen comments raising serious
Hi All,
I've been taking a closer look at microdata. While I like the proposal
in general, in particular the chance to unite microformat style
annotations with some of the Semantic Web formalism (such as URIs for
objects), there are still a number of points that I feel could be
improved. So
The point
I do not doubt of Ian's good faith, nor of his huge effort in making
HTML5 the best possible thing it might be. However, I doubt of the
sanity of having an individual to have the final say about any topic,
I don't doubt the sanity of it at all.
even above expert groups that have
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Peter Mikapm...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
[...]
#2
The other area that could be possibly improved is the connection of type
identifiers with ontologies on the web. I would actually like the notion of
reverse domain names if
-- there would be an explicit
Yes, #2 and #4 are quite related in that they both concern the
abbreviation mechanism for URIs and might be considered alternative
proposals.
On the other hand, on #4, you are opening the gate to independent
entities (be them organizations or individuals) to define the prefixes
they would be
PropertyNodeList.contents seems to be defined differently in the IDL and
the text related to it.
The IDL says:
typedef sequenceany PropertyValueArray;
interface PropertyNodeList : NodeList {
attribute PropertyValueArray contents;
};
The description says:
The contents DOM
Fair point. Just brainstorming here: how about making about an attribute?
div item id=amanda about=http://;/div
pName: span subject=amanda itemprop=nameAmanda/span/p
We still have two identifiers, but at least giving the URI is simplified.
Best,
Peter
Julian Reschke wrote:
Peter Mika
2009/7/9 Oldřich Vetešník vetes...@mrmil.cz:
Hi,
Imagine you have a (for example) category tree like this:
* Cars
* Sporty
* Limo
* 18 wheeler
* Bloody good
* Big
* Places to live in
* Villa
* Flat
* Under bridge
...
and you are to select one for your article of some
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
They are indeed distinct, but do share the same interface name in Opera the
moment, as far as I can tell...
Oh, the _name_ is shared in Gecko too. Just not anything else. ;)
In any case, my point was that we'd be ok with removing the tags member from
A technical point that may perhaps have already been considered.
Section 3.3.3.2 states If the title attribute's value contains U+000A
LINE FEED (LF) characters, the content is split into multiple lines.
Each U+000A LINE FEED (LF) character represents a line break. However
this is incompatible
I noticed that Section 4.6 of the Web Workers spec still refers to the
close event which has been removed:
If the script gets aborted by the kill a
worker#122aa363b1e6e893_kill-a-worker
algorithm, then that same algorithm will cause there to only be a singletask in
the event loop at the next
I object.
--
The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many',
and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'. - Larry Hardiman
http://www.ChaosReigns.com Guns save lives.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I object.
For reference, Darxus is referring to
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-0.html#unknown-images.
Now, care to clarify? A two-word objection is essentially useless for
anyone, and
On 2009-07-23 20:32, Eduard Pascual wrote:
While I don't consider a hard requirement would be appropriate, there
is an audience sector this discussion seems to be ignoring: Authoring
Tools' developers. IMO, it would be highly desirable to have some
guidelines for these tools to determine when
Based on recent discussions I've implemented a little text box that lets
you file bugs straight from the spec itself. Comments submitted in this
way are anonymous (well, your IP is logged publicly, but that's all).
Please only use it for short issues like typos! Technical topics with any
kind
Keryx Web wrote on 7/24/2009 2:52 PM:
In that post I talked about a common scenario. One developer works on
the business logic. It puts out attribute values. Another developer
works on the presentation logic. He makes templates. Dev 2 omits the
quotes and for a long time it might work, since
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Bil Corryb...@corry.biz wrote:
That's a classic XSS vulnerability. The backend developer must know if there
are quotes or not in the template, then encode/sanitize the value accordingly.
It's not XSS if the values are statically provided by the first
developer
Aryeh Gregor wrote on 7/24/2009 5:44 PM:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Bil Corryb...@corry.biz wrote:
That's a classic XSS vulnerability. The backend developer must know if
there are quotes or not in the template, then encode/sanitize the value
accordingly.
It's not XSS if the values
24 matches
Mail list logo
