On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 16:14 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 16:08:01 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/11/10 9:39 AM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
Is there really much of a need for this though?
Good question. What _is_ the use case here, exactly?
E.g
On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 17:06 +, Juuso Hukkanen wrote:
answer 1:
Most servers are already configured to read the requested pages
before
submitting those over the internet.
What do you base this on? I can't say I've ever seen a server set up to
parse HTML content
For example my above
On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 13:21 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Juuso Hukkanen juuso_ht...@tele3d.net
wrote:
1) Man-in-the-middle problem; which doesn't exists because
a) those are just academic mind games
You don't get to talk about security anymore.
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 14:54 +0200, Thomas Broyer wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
On 05/06/2010 12:09 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 05.05.2010 23:06 schrieb Schalk Neethling:
The way I see
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 12:45 +0300, Eitan Adler wrote:
This is an idea I've had in my head for a while and I think it might
make an useful addition to HTML5 standard.
As this is just an idea I didn't work out all the details. I'm just
looking to see if this is something that might be accepted.
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 13:31 +0200, Ingo Chao wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-img-element
The img must not be used as a layout tool. In particular, img
elements should not be used to display transparent images, as they
rarely convey meaning and rarely add anything useful
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 13:41 +0200, Giorgio Maone wrote:
I believe the spec is trying to stigmatize old-times spacer images used
to layout other HTML elements, like
img src=spacer.gif width=100 height=1
which are overly ugly and meaningless now that there's nothing you can't
layout by
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 15:37 -0700, John Gregg wrote:
The use case is not about choosing a directory for some browser
functionality, it is really about choosing a directory that you want
to upload to a web page, such as a collection of photo albums.
-John
From Ian Fette's original email
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 10:46 +0100, Diogo Resende wrote:
I don't understand. I think in a Choose File Dialog you can pick
multiple items. And as far as I know folders are mixed with files on the
list (that's how you navigate between folders on this dialog).
Why not choose multiple
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 11:03 +0100, Diogo Resende wrote:
No, most usually in a choose file dialogue, if you select a directory
instead of a file, the Open button actually opens that directory and
shows you the files in it. This is expected bahavior, or how else
would you navigate you
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 15:52 +0100, Diogo Resende wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 11:28 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
Double-click can only be performed by people using a mouse. What about
people suffering RSI who might prefer to use a keyboard? Have you ever
tried to navigate one of those
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 17:45 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Steve Dennis ad...@subcide.com wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, L. Ian Hickson wrote:
Personally, my opinion is that images in links should have borders because
otherwise how do you know it's a link?
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 23:12 +0200, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
Hi,
For input element in telephone state [1] specs say User agents may
change the punctuation of values that the user enters. I do not really
get it. What is the idea ?
[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/forms.html#telephone-state
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 14:28 -0700, John Gregg wrote:
The most relevant issue is that in Windows/Mac/Linux, there are no
system dialogs that let the user select either a folder or a file.
They each have separate choose a file and choose a folder
dialogs. I think the logical reason for that
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 01:28 +0200, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
If there was a true standard, then the spec would refer to that, but as
you say, it's very varied in practice.
There is quite a standard, even if an implicit one:
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 23:25 +0200, Onsemeliot wrote:
Hi people,
I hope nobody is offended if I start being a member of this group by asking
for a feature in the new standard.
I'm a web designer and try to stick to clear standards in order to get the
best results on various systems, but
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 12:37 +0530, narendra sisodiya wrote:
just a thought ___
You can view the first webpage create on earth. We have saved our file
from .txt .rtf .doc and now .odt. I love ODF format (.odt and other
things) but there is a scope for .zhtml format for document and
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 23:44 +0200, Christoph Päper wrote:
If you think about various syntax variants of wiki systems they’ve got one
thing in common that makes them preferable to direct HTML input: easy links!
(Local ones at least, whatever that means.) The best known example is
probably
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The
GIF format made things hairy
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 13:11 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 13:50 +, Aaron Franco wrote:
Hello,
My name is Aaron Franco. I'm a web developer and CTO of
nothingGrinder: http://blog.nothingGrinder.com
I'm new to this whole WHATWG process and environment so please be
patient with me.
I'm wondering if the H264 is
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 13:43 +0100, Roger Hågensen wrote:
On 2010-03-18 10:04, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
The main problem with that would be that parsers would then need to
read into the body of the page to produce a description of your
site. This might not produce much of an overhead
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 15:43 +0100, Roger Hågensen wrote:
On 2010-03-19 15:17, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
Search engines and people are not the only content parsers. Sure, you
would expect a parser to maybe look further into the content if the
description meta tag was missing, but imagine
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 03:37 +0100, Roger Hågensen wrote:
I searched the list, and looked at the HTML5 briefly and found nothing,
nor can I ever recall such.
So this is both a question and a proposal.
On my own site currently I mostly replicate the first paragraph of an
article in my
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 19:39 +, Alex Bishop wrote:
In the processing model for image maps (section 4.8.13.2), step 8 of the
processing instructions for area elements says that if the shape
attribute is in the Circle state:
Let x be the first number in coords, y be the second number,
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:50 -0800, Michal Zalewski wrote:
Servers are already free to obtain and mix in content from other sites, so
why can't client-side HTML JavaScript be similarly empowered?
I can see two reasons:
1) Users may not be happy about the ability for web applications to
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:53 +0100, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:40:31 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
I've now looked at a selection of random URLs.
Conclusion: None of these seem to need a request to be made. img
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 03:00 +0100, Remco wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 02:46, David Singer sin...@apple.com wrote:
Kiosks and the like fall into the category where the user agent, hardware
platform, and so on, are known in advance, so proprietary extensions or
other special methods work
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 04:47 -0600, Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ)
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 03:00 +0100, Remco wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 02:46, David Singer sin
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 05:05 -0600, Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ)
wrote:
2010/3/9 Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 04:47 -0600, Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴ
ンパ) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Ashley Sheridan
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:35 +0530, balachandar muruganantham wrote:
Hi,
I have heard from people that there have been a discussion on
supporting the fullscreen mode for HTML5 video element. can anyone
share the information on the conclusion we arrived at? i searched in
the archive but i
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 06:24 -0600, Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ)
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:35 +0530, balachandar muruganantham
wrote:
Hi,
I
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:48 +, Tim Hutt wrote:
2010/3/8 Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Also, I've never seen anything built in Flash that started up in
full-screen mode automatically. I had to trigger it explicitly every time
by an action from me.
That was his point
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 13:31 +, Tim Hutt wrote:
On 8 March 2010 13:16, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Tim Hutt tdh...@gmail.com schrieb am Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:48:30 +:
2010/3/8 Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
Also, I've never
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 01:56 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
2) I do not believe the proposed rule is a good default for either
documents or applications. It looks ugly. I randomly checked 10 of
the sites I browse most often and I
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:45 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:14, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
The majority of browsers render images within links as having a border
Do you mean the majority of browser installed base (IE's installed base plus
Firefox's)? Of the 5 top browsers
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 19:13 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
Ideally I guess then, the browsers would support .tar.gz files as these
give much better compression than .zip.
ZIP and gzip give comparable
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 10:10 +, Jose Fandos wrote:
Currently there are implementations allowing multiple file upload
without the need for flash or java applets.
What doesn't seem to be there, unless a java applet is used (haven't
come across one using flash) is the multiple file
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:12 +, Jose Fandos wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
wrote:
On 2/23/10 5:10 AM, Jose Fandos wrote:
What doesn't seem to be there, unless a java applet is
used (haven't
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 21:27 +, Jose Fandos wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tim Hutt tdh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2010 18:12, Jose Fandos iaminlon...@gmail.com
wrote:
2) A multipart response with the files as parts, each part
having
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 00:02 +0100, And Clover wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
or fixing UAs to only prompt once, to inventing yet another package format
here.
I'd go further: why not just give UAs an option to decompress a ZIP
archive (or potentially other recognised archive format) to
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 22:50 -0500, Brian Campbell wrote:
On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:02 PM, And Clover wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
or fixing UAs to only prompt once, to inventing yet another package format
here.
I'd go further: why not just give UAs an option to decompress a ZIP
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 11:08 +, Dean Edwards wrote:
On 22 February 2010 01:18, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/21/10 7:11 PM, Dean Edwards wrote:
Why not just extend :empty to include input with no value?
Because that's not backwards-compatible and in fact violates the
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 14:21 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Okay, I think the requirement for a solution here should be: authors
should not have to worry about their inputs looking bad if they
recolor them without taking placeholders into account. The
placeholder can't just take on the same color
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 20:26 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I thought the list might appreciate this news regarding plugin-added
video/ support in Internet Explorer:
http://cristianadam.blogspot.com/2010/02/ie-tag-take-two.html
Isn't that just a plugin being used to display content that
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:23 -0800, Adam Barth wrote:
I think the way WebKit handles this case is by re-parsing if the title
tag eats the whole document.
Adam
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Nikita Popov pri...@ni-po.com wrote:
I noticed, that mistyping the ending title tag causes a
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 22:48 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:29:14 +0100, Mounir Lamouri
mounir.lamo...@gmail.com wrote:
I am working on placeholder implementation on Gecko and I am face of the
placeholder style customization. Indeed, a website can style the
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 17:07 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/18/10 4:54 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
What about a new selector for these sorts of elements?
The topic of this thread is what form this selector should take and how
it should work.
To me it seems logical that you
shouldn't
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 16:21 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Setting color:black without a
background-color:white is distressingly common, but overall most
inputs are unstyled in my experience.
That should throw up issues in a CSS validation check, as it really
screws up with both people like
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 17:54 -0500, L. David Baron wrote:
On Thursday 2010-02-18 16:45 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Anne suggested in IRC using the pseudoclass approach, and pairing it
with the ::value pseudoelem from the Basic UI Module. You could get
But the key question (from the
101 - 150 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
