On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM, fantasai wrote:
> The CSSWG discussed drag-and-drop pseudo-classes today. The current
> proposal is to have three pseudo-classes:
>
> * One for the element representing the drop target that
> would receive the item if it were dropped.
> * One for all elemen
The CSSWG discussed drag-and-drop pseudo-classes today. The current
proposal is to have three pseudo-classes:
* One for the element representing the drop target that
would receive the item if it were dropped.
* One for all elements representing possible drop targets
that could receive
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Bonnie Surender wrote:
> Wrt to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764234 and API
> description http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding section "Note to
> Implementers", "Some encode/decode algorithms require adjusting thecode
> point pointer orbyte
whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Hi,
Wrt to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764234 and API description
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding section "Note to Implementers", "Some encode/decode
algorithms require adjusting thecode point pointer orbyte pointer by a negative amount.",
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> If it indeed is the case that there are really only two realistic
> bitmaps samplings for catering to differences in weeding device pixel
> density (ignoring art direction), it would make sense to have simply
> instead of an in-attribute mic
Am 13.08.2012 18:39 schrieb Henri Sivonen:
Ignoring implementation issues for a moment, I think it would be
conceptually easier it to disentangle these axes like this:
Non-art directed:
Art directed:
I like this hisrc approach for its simplicity; it depends on the
question whether a li
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> I wasn't debating whether or not shipping a device with a 1.5 pixel
> ratio is the best decision, but answering: "Is there a good reason
> to believe that will be something other than a power of two?"
>
> The fact that it has happened seems
Sorry if this is a dupe; I replied to this from my phone and an incorrect
address, and my earlier reply isn't showing in the archives.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> The spec now contains the following text:
>
> "NOTE: Because only UTF encodings are supported, and becaus
That spells out a major browser vendor issue much more clearly. I think
just having the option to develop in application/xhtml+xml and switching to
text/html is a good start though.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> Le 10 août 2012 à 20:19, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> > I d
