] ~ label:after { content: '*' }
... and possibly javascript to read that attribute, etc.
But since I can't implement that on my select elements and still validate,
I plan to skip the required attribute entirely and use class names instead
for now so that all the form elements are consistent.
--
Jon
in implementation than
devising a web authors' wishlist, but that's what I'd rather see.
--
Jon Barnett
/actionscript_dictionary/actionscript_dictionary646.html
--
Jon Barnett
for XPath? Except for the cross-domain iframe
case, you could script support for XPointer if the browser has decent
support for XPath in Javascript. I know I've had instances where I wished
for XPointer support. It may or may not have had a fair shake.
--
Jon Barnett
of
styling buttons for producing file dialogs than to force Samuel Santos
to use dirty CSS hacks, a proprietary tool, or an API that interfaces
with HTML forms in a clunky way.
[1] http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/uploader/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/file-upload/
--
Jon Barnett
is uploaded (as
multipart/form-data with headers for each file, etc).
...
Web Forms 2.0 already defines min= and max= attributes for this purpose.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. input type=file max=n where n is
greater than 1 would allow for mutliple files. I hadn't seen that.
--
Jon Barnett
@ping, I think it would be a necessary feature to compel me to
use @ping.
--
Jon Barnett
.
If it were to be crammed into HTML, it would be nice if it were done like this:
a href=... type=application/octet-stream; md5=xxx
That may not work, though, if it steps on RFC1864's toes.
--
Jon Barnett
does not accept input from the user; however,
it may have a meaningful value that is worth submitting because its value
can be calculated on the client side.
Indeed, readonly controls should be successful. (Yes, they are in
HTML4 as well)
--
Jon Barnett
that may be supported
(XMLHttpRequest also fits in this category)
--
Jon Barnett
. In other words
script src=http://nonexistant.example.com/;
alert('hi');
/script
should bring up an alert.
/ Jonas
That's not what section 3.17 currently says, and that's not the way Firefox
behaves on my machine. Is that noted anywhere?
--
Jon Barnett
On 5/29/07, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't care much for the semantic side of things but changing section 8.2
(and Acid2) to make ptable not become p/ptable as per HTML4
would be fine with me. We discussed this recently in #whatwg. Simon has
some ideas about it.
Is there
On 5/24/07, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Barnett wrote:
It's detrimental to the user when the user is denied content or a
stylesheet for the content because a server is misconfigured. There are
cases, such as CSS documents and images referenced by CSS documents,
where
.
It should be possible for a UA to satisfy both of those conditions and still
do the content-type sniffing in HTML5.
Also, HTML5 doesn't encourage authors to use incorrect content-type, it just
suggests how browsers should handle errors.
(sorry I didn't hit reply to all the first time...)
--
Jon
. End users tend to blame the browser
first.
--
Jon Barnett
On 5/23/07, gary turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely. Authors and server admins have the responsibility to get
things right. What I do not understand is how having a browser follow
the rules is detrimental to the user. On the contrary, ignoring the
server or meta content-type is
.
--
Jon Barnett
On 5/15/07, Kristof Zelechovski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The OP probably meant that maintaining so many contexts would cause a
comparable deterioration in performance. All user comments should be put
in
one security context.
With all comments grouped together in such a manner, you could even
On 5/14/07, Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 2007-05-14 à 11:35, Alexey Feldgendler a écrit :
I'd treat these two problems as equally important. A separate HTTP
request per forum comment on the page is completely unacceptable.
What about encoding the content of each comment iframe
--
Jon Barnett
not sure how important any of this is.
--
Jon Barnett
The current phrasing doesn't restrict this to span. It allows WYSIWYG
editors to produce pfont size=7blah/font/p where h1blah/h1 is
appropriate.
If I understand correctly, even that wouldn't be correct, because the only
attribute specifically allowed on font is the style attribute. I
If you're marking up stuff as a tree, the markup should probably look like a
tree:
section id=treeFirst group
divSecond Group
divThird Group/div
/div
/section
if what you want it a tree, that structure is better, so the CSS would
simply say:
#tree, #tree div { margin-left: 5em; }
If you want to
Embedded and inline editors would include the textarea tag, which is
clearly
not WYSIWYG for HTML (but is for plain text) so both are poor terms.
Embedded, inline editors would include contenteditable areas and documents
with designMode on, like the box I'm typing in right now in Gmail.
Quite
On 4/30/07, Ian McKellar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/25/07, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The use case of being able to drop images into a
contenteditable region and have them show up as img elements at the
appropriate place and then get automatically uploaded somewhere is a
really
I think sarcasm is a good case for class extensions
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/ClassExtensions
That could also apply to other tones of voice where context doesn't make it
obvious, such as irony, anger, suspicion, elation, and veiled threats.
On 4/22/07, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:26:55 +0100, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
By entirely omitted alt, do you still only mean WYSIWYG editors? If
not, I agree. The distinction would be as follows:
(1) img src=obvious.jpg alt=obvious
that stay the same, or should special semantics be defined
for a missing alt? Would any new semantics affect the DOM alt attribute?
(I don't think it should.) I'd still like to know what other current UAs
(screen readers) do with a missing alt.
--
Jon Barnett
Options might include image 2 - vista of the canyon or image 2 (where
the text already says what that is) or all kinds of other things.
noalt is a good idea and leaves no ambiguity.
Except that it breaks all backward compatibility.
Can you please explain how?
img src=grandcanyon.jpg
of discussion.
--
Jon Barnett
. Lynx should indicate that the image is missing and offer a
way to download it
(3) img src=decor.jpg alt= The image is purely decorational or
represents text that would be redundant to display. Lynx should pretend
it's not there.
--
Jon Barnett
On 4/17/07, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope you're talking about GZip or BZip2, not application/zip…
Doesn't matter to me - I just figure some sort of compression would help,
and it would probably help if that compression was supported by browsers, so
gzip sounds right.
The
On 4/16/07, Jon Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC 2557 was mentioned in the last thread.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557
After reading it in detail (and indeed writing a script to send HTML with
inline images as attachments), I quite like it. It's simple and obvious
enough and allows
If you want structured data in this attribute, why not just use JSON?
That's an idea that crossed my mind as well. I dismissed it for a few
reasons:
- authors would have to entitize quotes and ampersands in their attributes,
which they're not used to doing with JSON normally.
- evaluating it
On 4/10/07, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of starts with x_, how about contains a colon?
A conformance checker could ensure that there is a corresponding xmlns
declaration that applies here, and possibly even do additional
verification if it recognizes the namespace.
An HTML5
an invisible textarea just so
as
to give JavaScript something to chew on -- then I can use string.split to
pull the data apart. Is that what you mean? I rather doubt it.
By private you don't really mean inaccessible to end users do you?
I think I need an example to understand.
regards,
David
--
Jon
36 matches
Mail list logo
