On Jun 2, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Hi all,
the Annodex Association and Xiph Foundation are in the process of
implementing a small-footprint library and firefox plugin called
OggPlay that provides native Ogg Theora support.
There's a javascript API in the process of being
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
If HTMLDocument really is going to apply to every Document object...
then at least HTMLDocument.title needs to somehow not clash with
SVGDocument.title or do both or something.
I basically see two
On May 30, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 11:39, Julian Reschke wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Whether or not it should be conforming is a different question.
How a document is to be parsed is best agreed upon between
browser vendors I
On May 30, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I know Mozilla has considered other approaches to offline web apps,
but I think the LocalServer type approach seems cleaner than
Mozilla's JAR file plan, since it is much more transparent and allows
local resource caching to be decoupled
On May 29, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
To avoid stepping on the toes of Charmod more than is necessary, I
suggest making it non-conforming for a document to have bytes in
the 0x80…0x9F range when the character encoding is declared to be
one of the ISO-8859 family encodings.
On May 22, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
And besides, the bookmarklet uses the javascript protocol, which,
IIRC, is
designed to produce a new document on the fly, not to modify the
current
one.
On the contrary, many uses of the javascript: URI scheme in web pages
are
On May 22, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Forgive my being nosy: which uses?
a href=javascript:. is valid but it replaces the current document
with a
document parsed from the textual representation of the value
returned from
the script.
If the javascript: URI returns the
On May 21, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
If we simply ignore /head there's no longer a need to append
elements to the head element pointer. In fact, we can remove it. I'm
not sure how much this would complicate conformance checking, but it
would certainly be very nice not to
On May 18, 2007, at 9:56 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I did quite a lot of research before defining it. There's content
depending on it. Two browsers support it, and workarounds are hacked
into
libraries to fake it for the two other browsers, including one that
supports script defer. (The
On May 18, 2007, at 10:14 PM, liorean wrote:
On 19/05/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for (var i in elements) {
if (!elements[i].processed) {
process(elements[i]);
elements[i].processed = true;
}
}
for (var i in elements)
delete elements[i].processed;
On May 19, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Dean Edwards wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 18, 2007, at 10:14 PM, liorean wrote:
On 19/05/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The uniqueID thing is really working around a deficiency in JS
(inability to use objects as keys). I think that's where
On May 18, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
1) Mozilla's DOMContentLoaded event is very handy. It fires when a
node's content has been loaded and parsed (the DOM has been
constructed). This is much better than the standard onload event as
it
On May 18, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Brad Neuberg wrote:
Here's a possible API for GET and POST semantics without
XmlHttpRequest:
window.location.href = base URL + URL parameters already appended
window.location.method = GET or POST, nothing else supported
On May 17, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
In response to overwhelming feedback on this issue (especially in
blogs, forums, and mailing lists other than this one, like www-
html and public-html) I've removed the predefined classes. They're
opaque again.
The main
On May 15, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
(Given that you can create them yourself I'm not sure why ImageData
has readonly attributes, but maybe that would save some additional
checking...)
Ironically, due to the readonly attributes you
On May 13, 2007, at 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
In a reply to a message from Mathieu Hixie indicated that you can
create your own ImageData objects easily in ECMAScript:
var data = { height:1, width:1, data:[0,0,0,0] }
context.putImageData(data, 0, 0)
I would like the
On May 10, 2007, at 1:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 06:52:33 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The W3C's HTML working group today resolved to start from the current
WHATWG work. Specifically, the group resolved to review our work, and
will probably build on it.
On May 5, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Ben Ward wrote:
On 16 Apr 2007, at 22:03, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
A cross-browser web archive format sounds like a useful thing
From a purely practical perspective, surely support for the data:
URI format solves this problem? The user-agent's ‘Save as Web
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
At 00:36 +1200 UTC, on 2007-04-30, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
[...]
If _blank is allowed, I would prefer the specification to discourage
authors from using _blank when another solution is practical (e.g.
using a details element in the
On May 4, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
At 01:32 -0700 UTC, on 2007-05-04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Safari indicates in the status bar hover feedback when a link will
open in a new window, new frame or new tab, or if it will download,
if we can tell based on target setting
On May 1, 2007, at 12:05 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
How about about adding a toggle() operation to classList? Adds the
token if not present, removes it if present. This would be useful
for script code that dynamically manipulates classes to cause
style changes
On Apr 28, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
On Apr 28, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
...
One valid reason to use _blank instead of a named target to open a
new window is the fact that the top-level frame namespace is
global, and you don't want to collide
On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Martin Atkins wrote:
Christian Schmidt wrote:
In practice, the result effect is often achieved by wrapping your
include file in a document.write() and including this using
script a script src= However, this makes it harder to
write
How about about adding a toggle() operation to classList? Adds the
token if not present, removes it if present. This would be useful for
script code that dynamically manipulates classes to cause style changes.
Regards,
Macie
On Apr 27, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Why is _blank still considered a conforming value? On IRC, Hixie
mentioned that there are some legitimate use cases, but didn't
list any.
I've argued against popups many times before and heard many
On Apr 27, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The major reasons for popups that I can remember include:
* Links to external sites, so that users don't leave the previous
site.
- It's far better to inform the user that they're going to an
external
site and let them decide for
On Apr 27, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Won't this just lead authors (who care about conformance) to use
window.open(), with equally bad results that it's harder for the
UA to
control?
I also made it non-conforming for window.open
On Apr 22, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Kornel Lesinski 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 - This
On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:32:10 -0400, Maciej Stachowiak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it remains the case that for end-user generated content,
there will often be semantically meaningful images that are
meaningful in themselves
Hi Karl,
On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
in a drag and drop scenario in your mail.app or other HTML
authoring tool, you could imagine:
+--+
| |
| | the image itself
| |
| |
|
On Apr 16, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Tyler Keating wrote:
Hi,
I'm bringing this up again with a different tact, because the more
that I think about it, the more I believe it has the ability to
significantly change the perception and application of HTML and I
would really like to keep the
On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Jordan OSETE wrote:
Hello folks at the WHATWG.
Some simple suggestions about the great canvas tag:
Clipping-paths:
---
Right now if i understand it correctly, the clip() function creates
a new clipping path, being the intersection of the last
On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:01 PM, gary turner wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 14, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
1.4
when not qualified to explicitly refer
when not qualified explicitly to refer
(split infinitive)
The split infinitive is not generally considered a grammatical
On Apr 14, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
1.4
when not qualified to explicitly refer
when not qualified explicitly to refer
(split infinitive)
The split infinitive is not generally considered a grammatical error
these days. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive for
This topic came up on #html-wg today.
Mail.app and other mail clients don't put alt attributes on images
generated in email. They could add alt=, but there are two reasons
it might be better to allow no alt attribute at all, at least for
email clients.
1) A mail message is often sent to
On Apr 10, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Here's a page I constructed, and tested on Firefox:
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2007/04/10/test.html
This page is meant to be served as application/xhtml+xml.
Can you test it and see what results you get? Then lets discuss
further.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
I think the correct fallback for a photograph for its own sake is
alt=(Use
a browser that supports graphic images to view).
If you really want to be anal about the spec, I don't think this
would truly represent text with an
On Apr 11, 2007, at 6:04 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I'd rather have something simple such as prefix_name for
extensions made by ECMAScript libraries, etc. (As opposed to an in
scope xmlns:prefix=http://...; with prefix:name extensions which
work differently in
On Apr 10, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:21:10AM -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
# application/ogg; disposition=moving-image; codecs=theora, vorbis
# application/ogg; disposition=sound; codecs=speex
what is the 'disposition' parameter?
The idea of a
On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:41:12 +0200, Sam Ruby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How so?
I missed the part where you wanted to change existing HTML
parsers. I thought Hixie pointed out earlier (by means of
examples) why we can't
On Apr 8, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
At http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2007/04/html_5.html PPK
suggests having an attribute for storing private data for scripts.
Currently, one can invent an attribute and it will work for
scripts. However, it will look ugly for
On Apr 7, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On 7 Apr 2007, at 15:47, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:27:14 +0200, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK browsers and other HTML clients don't currently treat these as
comments, [...]
Well, sorry to say, you
On Apr 5, 2007, at 4:53 AM, ddailey wrote:
I understand that some here have reasons not to be happy with SMIL,
but its implementation within SVG really is quite nice and
understandable. So far as I can see, the discontent with it stems
primarily from the fact SMIL seems to have
On Apr 4, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
CSS Timed Media Module proposal - http://webkit.org/specs/
Timed_Media_CSS.html
Some feedback on my initial reading.. the CSS properties specified
seem like a good set that will cover most common
Hey Gerv,
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it
won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft,
I guess) a financial
On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors,
it won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and
Microsoft, I
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Reasons Apple would like MPEG4 + H.264 + AAC to be the preferred
codec stack
--
- We already need to support these for video production and
consumer electronics (so no extra patent cost to us)
I don't
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
It's not immediately clear to me that a Mozilla license would not
cover
redistribution, for instance the license fees paid by OS vendors
generally cover redistribution when the OS is bundled with a PC. I
think
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
That's an attempt to force the issue by fiat.
But any specification for anything could be described as an
attempt to force the issue by fiat. That' just loaded language.
Let me frame the conversation a bit
On Mar 26, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Marks wrote:
Are you talking container or codecs here? AVI is a significant
container format, with some variant of MPEG4 codecs in.
My point was that the MPEG4 standard, including both its
On Mar 18, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
Slightly more complex use case:
object classid=clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B
codebase=http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab;
width=200
height=16
param name=src value=my-audio.mp3 /
param
On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007, at 20:47, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I agree the repetition of source/src is a little weird.
and name the new element something like alt
I don't like abbreviations such as alt and src.
The use case is uncommon enough
On Mar 23, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
How can load() be invoked when certain method calls have not yet
returned?
Most of the methods result in synchronous event dispatch, which can
invoke further code.
Why does it switch to the
On Mar 23, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I would suggest adopting the states from the Apple proposal instead,
where this state would correspond to UNINITIALIZED (starting a load
would switch to LOADING state).
Yeah, I'm planning
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:29 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
However, as others have pointed out, MIME types only represent the
container format and not the codecs inside, so content negotiation
would need to be extended to somehow allow audio and video codecs
to be presented in addition to
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:09 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
From an accessibility perspective the proposal lacks support for
captioning. There should be a mechanism for enabling/disabling
captions to avoid disadvantaging people who have difficulties with
hearing the audio. It should further be
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I think having a single baseline codec will make video immensely
more
attractive to authors than it otherwise would be. I also believe
from the
point of view of Mozilla (or any other open source project) Theora
is vastly
more attractive
On Mar 22, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
A fallback without a mandated 'minimum' codec is next to worthless.
Standards
with similar goals of interoperability, like DLNA, have ended up
choosing some
mandated codecs (which are all 'older' codecs) and some optional
higher
/specs/
HTML_Timed_Media_Elements.html
We also have a list of areas where we think the proposal could use
refinement or additional features, but where we do not yet have a
final design to present:
http://webkit.org/specs/Timed_Media_Elements-Open_Issues.html
Regards,
Maciej Stachowiak
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
* I'm concerned about the type attribute for content negotiation.
Historically, type attributes are very badly implemented and even
less
reliably used. Conditional fallback in general is badly
implemented and
bug-prone especially in the
On Mar 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
- As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level
requirement would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have
it if it might be invoked often.
OK, let's
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:16 PM, Simon Pieters wrote:
Hi,
I think tabindex= has a number of problems:
1) Lacking a feature to scope tabindexes into local contexts, which
I proposed[1] a while back, makes the feature rather useless for
its intended purpose (which, AIUI, was to provide a means
On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:47:23 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I can tell, the current spec does not adequately define
how fallback behavior works. Specifically, what should be done
with fallback content when
The recent discussion of possibly making the href attribute global
brings to mind a broader issue. To what extent should semantics and
behavior belong to specific elements, and to what extent should they
be carried by global attributes that can apply to any element?
XHTML2 moves a lot
On Mar 11, 2007, at 1:34 PM, carmen wrote:
suppose one is building a GUI with solely canvas elements.
i suppose i should have researched canvas - it looks like it
doesn't have elemnts one might be faimilar with the Tk canvas - you
can only draw using javascript. are there plans to
As far as I can tell, the current spec does not adequately define how
fallback behavior works. Specifically, what should be done with
fallback content when not falling back?
Presumably it should be parsed into the DOM, but should not render -
that's the de facto behavior. But I don't
On Mar 7, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Personally I'd just give everyone HTML unless they specifically
ask for XML and even then those tools should be capable of
handling HTML imo. After all, it's the exchange format of the web.
Personally I'm happy
On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On concern that we would be 'wasting' such a short element name for
such an esoteric usage, why not call it mark instead?
I agree, I think the spec should be hesitant to introduce additional
single-letter element names.
Regards,
Maciej
I looked into DOMTokenString with keen interest, because I believe an
API for manipulating individual classes of an HTML element is
increasingly important as we see more dynamic sites that use CSS
styling. However, I think the design for this is not suitable as-is.
Summary of
putPixels is just a cover for drawing a bunch of 1 x 1 rects. And in
general it won't be much more efficient than that, due to possible
device scaling. Is drawing a bunch of 1x1 rects a common enough use
case to be worth it? Seems like it would almost always be better
solved by drawing
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Single select:
Is it conforming for an option to be both selected and disabled? (I
think it shouldn't be conforming.)
And analogously: Is is conforming for a radio button to be both
checked and disabled if the whole set is not disabled?
On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
In addition to supporting getting and setting of individual
pixels, we
also support locking of the canvas and better control over the redraw
process, for optimized performance in games.
What happens if an exception is thrown while you
On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:We're stuck with it forever as well, since most of the Dashboard widgets use script src=""/ in HTML. You can say we're wrong in the spec, but we won't be able to change it. :(I think we need a dashboard mode, given that this is incompatible with all
On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Untrusted content is unclear. It implies the existence of
something that isn't untrusted content, i.e. trusted content.
Where is that defined? I do not believe it is defined anywhere, in
which case specifying its behavior seems non-useful.
I
On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Note that user agents may implement whichever URI schemes are
required
for their particular application. The WF2 specification does not
specify a required core set of protocols that must be
implemented. For
those that are implemented, UAs
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Jim Ley wrote:
On 11/30/05, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should XMLHttpRequest.status return on connection timeout?
Ian and I were
talking about this, and it seems like 502 is a good response
code here...
See
On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2005Nov/0017 , I
wrote a comment on a WHATWG spec,
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#scs-session , which I
quote here:
On Monday 2005-11-21 07:44 -0800, Kenny wrote:
[...]
My
On Dec 9, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think a lot of section 5.6 should be removed from the spec.
Most of section 5.6 consists of defining behaviour to ensure
interoperability between implementations, since if the spec doesn't
list
401 - 478 of 478 matches
Mail list logo
