On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
I suspect I'm missing something obvious but is there a way to turn off
the little status boxes in the left margins on the draft
Andrew Oakley wrote:
Most notably HTML5 says that the Content-Type header is used in
preference to the type attribute, whereas the browsers seem to honour
the attribute in preference to the header.
Firefox hasn't done that (at least across the board) since Firefox 3.0
shipped.
Note that the
Same issue on Firefox 3.5.1 Mac at various font sizes. :-(
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elh...@ibiblio.org
This specification defines an abstract language for describing
documents and applications, and some APIs for interacting with
in-memory representations of resources that use this language.
The phrase abstract language concerns me. It's not clear to me that
a language can be abstract, nor is it
Section 1.7:
The first such concrete syntax is HTML5. This is the format
recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web
browsers.
I challenge the claim that HTML5 is compatible with *all* legacy Web
browsers. I can produce valid HTML 4 documents today that are not
compatible
The first such concrete syntax is HTML5. This is the format
recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web
browsers. If a document is transmitted with the MIME type text/html,
then it will be processed as an HTML5 document by Web browsers.
The second concrete syntax uses XML,
I suggest deleting the parenthetical remark (they are in the
per-element partition). I'm not sure what this term means. I've never
encountered either partition or per-element partition in an XML
namespace context before. And as best as I can guess the meaning, it
doesn't seem very accurate.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Elliotte Rusty Haroldelh...@ibiblio.org wrote:
Section 1.9 uses this DOCTYPE twice:
!DOCTYPE HTML
Unless the intention is to demonstrate case-insensisitivity, which
doesn't seem to be the case since that's not otherwise mentioned in
this section, I think this
With thanks to the CTO of our company, Dave Longley, we have run a set
of preliminary tests across a number of browsers to determine if and
when xmlns:-style attributes are preserved.
The test ensures that attributes originating in the markup of an HTML4
document are preserved by the HTML parser
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:12:07 -0400, Manu Sporny
mspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
The test ensures that attributes originating in the markup of an HTML4
document are preserved by the HTML parser and are preserved in the DOM.
[...]
the image actually also contained animation data.
delete actually. It adds nothing to the sentence.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elh...@ibiblio.org
Is there any good reason why a script tag with the src attribute specified
can¹t be self-closing?
I understand the need for a script tag to have an open and close tag when
you¹re executing javascript inline:
script type=text/javascript
alert(Huzzah! I got executed just like you though I
Applications and tools that process HTML and XHTML documents for
reasons other than to either render the documents or check them for
conformance should act in accordance to the semantics of the documents
that they process.2.2 editorial
in accordance to -- in accordance with
--
Elliotte Rusty
In particular, the algorithms defined in this specification are
intended to be easy to follow, and not intended to be performant.
Yech. The recently coined word performant just grates on my ears;
and I'm not the only one as a Google search will show:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
Is there any good reason why a script tag with the src attribute specified
can’t be self-closing?
Because the HTML serialization should be parseable by legacy
user-agents. script src=foo / will be treated the same as script
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
Is there any good reason why a script tag with the src attribute specified
can’t be self-closing?
I understand the need for a script tag to have an open and close tag when
you’re executing javascript inline:
script
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
Is there any good reason why a script tag with the src attribute specified
can’t be self-closing?
...
I feel like, if you’re including an external JS file, the syntax should look
more like the link tag used to include CSS
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Greg Houstongregory.hous...@gmail.com wrote:
This makes sense to me as well. Last week a user of my framework
posted to the forums asking for help. The JavaScript was not loading,
and it turned out he was trying to self-close the script tags in the
header. So
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
Same issue on Firefox 3.5.1 Mac at various font sizes. :-(
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Justin Lebar wrote:
Happens to me on Ubuntu 9.04 with FF 3.5.2.
Screenshot at [1] http://stanford.edu/~jlebar/moz/screen1.png
Do either of you have a minimum
Charles McCathieNevile wrote on 8/6/2009 2:24 PM:
Opera 10 - Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X; U; en) Presto/2.2.15
Version/10.00
(yeah, the UA string is like that because important websites with
browser sniffing check version numbers, but only the first digit. I.e.
they can't count
Ian Hickson writes:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
the little status boxes in the left margins on the draft spec? They
seem to cover some of the text I'd like to read.
If they cover up any of the text, that is a bug.
I experienced this recently with a minimum font
I was writing some unit tests for SharedWorkers, and I saw some behavior
that seems to be spec compliant, but which was counter-intuitive from a
developer standpoint.
Let's say that you have two message ports - some other window or a shared
worker owns the other end of those ports.
You then do
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
I was writing some unit tests for SharedWorkers, and I saw some behavior
that seems to be spec compliant, but which was counter-intuitive from a
developer standpoint.
Let's say that you have two message ports - some other window or a shared
worker owns
Unbeknownst to me, I had a minimum font size of 12pt set. FWIW, I
don't remember setting this, so it may have been a default.
-Justin
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
Same issue on Firefox 3.5.1 Mac at various
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML syntax/
or the HTML 4 syntax doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
script tag the browser will not execute anything inside the tags.
Regardless of
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML syntax/
or the HTML 4 syntax doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
script
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML syntax/
or the HTML 4 syntax doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
script
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
script src is the way it is. It's inconsistent, but that's how
generations of browsers have worked. Trying to change it in the way
you suggest not only doesn't work in legacy browsers, it *actively
breaks* pages in
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Cready, Jamesjcre...@rtcrm.com wrote:
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML syntax/
or the HTML 4 syntax doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
script
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
script src is the way it is. It's inconsistent, but that's how
generations of browsers have worked. Trying to change it in the way
you suggest
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
I've changed the spec to do external deferred src=ed scripts at the end of
document load (blowing away the document as before), and inline deferred
scripts as soon as innerHTML is set, if it is set, or else along with other
6.9.4, paragraph 7 says, “applications caches never include fragment
identifiers” and I think this should just be “application caches”.
-- Darin
All,
on the IETF Hybi mailing list there has been some discussion regarding the
protocol that should carry WebSockets.
There was considerable divided opinions about the style of protocol that
would be most appropriate and what level of features should be supported
etc. That conversation ground
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote:
Do you have some suggestions for how the data could be transferred
most efficiently to the glBufferData call? As far as I know there is
no tag which could be used to refer to the binary file within the
archive. If there were then
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
With Arun's announcement of a stable File API spec [1], I have now updated
HTML5 to handle the use cases listed below.
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.html
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, ivan vadovic wrote:
35 matches
Mail list logo
