Le Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:36:10 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote:
I know it's rather very late for comments and suggestions to WebForms 2.
Yet, I think they are welcome for future versions. Hixie, if you have
any notes (or whatever) about WF3
Le Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:34:26 +0300, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote:
Shouldn't the video API include a way to toggle full screen on/off? This
is a rather basic feature of videos. If it will not be available, video
sites will hack around missing
Hello Hixie!
Again, thanks for replying to one of my very old emails. Also, note the
email address change.
Le Fri, 25 May 2007 00:18:48 +0300, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, ROBO Design wrote:
I see the WA 1.0 specification contains a great deal of prose
Hello!
Shouldn't the video API include a way to toggle full screen on/off? This
is a rather basic feature of videos. If it will not be available, video
sites will hack around missing full screen support.
The current spec doesn't define it.
I'd suggest adding a new property to the
Le Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:30:34 +0200, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:07:20 -, Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If video elements would have native UIs, bloggers would be more
attracted of it, and developers of video sites as well. In the above
Le Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:06:51 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:07:20 +0100, Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
3. Personally, I believe the native UI should opt-out, not opt-in.
video element implementations should not be required to implement
Le Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:44:08 +0200, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Intriguing. My uneducated guess would be that YouTube would prefer to
stick to Flash, since it's probably harder to strip branding out of
Flash than any XML format.
I don't believe the current video
Le Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:15:43 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Automatic behavior in HTML has been traditionally expressed through
scripting. It's not hard to write a one-line script which automatically
starts playback, but solutions based on scripting are easier to
Hello!
I heav read the specification of the video element (16 March 2007) [1],
and I have the following comments to make:
1. I would suggest renaming length to duration, because length is a
rather general term. length is also used for arrays in JavaScript, and
other languages. duration
Le Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:21:14 +0200, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
Not sure. Should
object data=foo
img src=bar onload=alert('x')
show a modal dialog?
No, it should not. Fallback content should not execute (styling and
scripts), also, fallback content should not be
Le Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:04:39 +0200, Colin Lieberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
I'm not sure how this is a backwards compatibility issue. My
understanding is that user agents aren't actually parsing information
from the doctype, just checking for its existence. The only applications
that
Le Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:37:31 +0200, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
However looking at a number of tabular but not exactly repeating forms,
both on the Web and on paper, I notice that it common for the column
headers to essentially serve as label for the input fields. For
Le Sun, 11 Mar 2007 02:45:18 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Not necessarily. For a long time, Microsoft has been in a position where
they benefit from the lack of interoperability with other browsers. They
had no incentive to make their browser standards-compliant.
Le Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:35:09 +0200, Daniel Glazman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Just as a reminder, and I am an old monkey in the world of standards
bodies, a standard body is not only a cool place where friendly geeks
meet, drink (sometimes) free beer, and write standards for the beauty
of
Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:46:15 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:53:09 +0100, Asbjørn Ulsberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a plain simple yet brilliant idea.
Thanks. :)
I'm sad there aren't more replies to this wonderful idea, though! :-P
Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:27:32 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:16:09 +0100, Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Alexey, actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had
reading the first post was hey, do we need yet another switch
Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:39:46 +0200, Jorgen Horstink
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Mar 10, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote:
Adding a new DOCTYPE switch is not a solution to Microsoft's problem.
As far as I understand it, the new DOCTYPE switch is meant to 'tell' to
browser
Le Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:21:11 +0200, Shadow2531 [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
On 3/10/07, Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually I'm skeptical about this. First impression I had reading
the first post was hey, do we need yet another switch?. What's
super-duper standards mode after all
Hello!
Reading about the meta element I found a typo in the Pragma directives
section, Refresh state. [1]
If another meta element in the Refresh state has already been
successfully processed (i.e. when it was inserted the user agent processed
it and reached the last step of this list of
Le Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:58:20 +0200, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
Mihai Sucan wrote:
No. I really meant commas, not semicolons. This is because I use commas
to separate multiple email addresses in the To: field in Opera M2.
I'm quite certain it also works in Outlook
Hello!
Thank you for the reply.
Le Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:17:30 +0200, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Mihai Sucan wrote:
I'm not sure if this is appropriate thread to make a wish, but the
subject
is WF3 feature list. Please don't forget about extending input
type=email to allow
Le Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:55:02 +0200, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
I'll start:
* XForms Tiny's |calculate| attribute
* |required| attribute with expression values
(formerly XForms Tiny's |needed| attribute)
* |valid| (formerly XForms Tiny's |constraint| attribute)
*
Hello!
I know it's rather very late for comments and suggestions to WebForms 2.
Yet, I think they are welcome for future versions. Hixie, if you have any
notes (or whatever) about WF3, please also include this suggestion (if you
haven't done so already).
Today I was working on a
Le Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:55:32 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
I've been having a lot of trouble following this discussion, because I
can't work out what it is that is being asked for. There seem to be
multiple discussions going on, and it isn't clear to me that everybody
really
Le Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:10:18 +0200, Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Le 4 déc. 2006 à 6:10, Mihai Sucan a écrit :
However, in the same spirit, a middle way for those who want XMLiness
in HTML, would be to allow the xmlns:?.* attribute, xml:base, xml:id,
and xml:lang. Yet, define
Le Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:00:46 +0200, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
On 11/29/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think it's a good idea to make the trailing slash conforming.
Although it is harmless, it provides no additional benefit at all and it
creates the false
Le Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:25:45 +0300, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
Hi,
From: Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think we want another attribute. I tend to like the idea of
having tabindex=-2. IIRC -1 is already reserved for skipping the
control when navigating (maybe only
Le Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:31:38 +0300, Clayton Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
No expanding of the caption element with a |for| attribute or nested
inside any block element?
img id='photograph' src='...'
caption for='photograph'Photo of Foo herders courtesy of
Jimmy/caption
caption
Le Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:00:21 +0300, dolphinling [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
fantasai wrote:
I'm wondering what WA1 considers appropriate markup for
a figure with a caption.
~fantasai
What's wrong with
div
img src=
pThis is the caption./p
/div
? That's how I think of it
Le Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:42:13 +0300, dolphinling [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit:
Mihai Sucan wrote:
There's nothing wrong with that. Yet, that's not exactly an image
caption. There's no explicit association between the img and the
following p.
But there's the implicit association given
Le Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:50:36 +0300, Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Le 27 juin 2006 à 6:00, dolphinling a écrit :
What's wrong with
div
img src=
pThis is the caption./p
/div
? That's how I think of it semantically, and I don't see it as being
common enough to warrant a
releases of any UA. As Juan
said: Firefox will have a fix. Internet Explorer is an atypicial (might I
add a tragical) example, not worth going into details.
Mihai Sucan wrote:
Another different take:
If LaTeX is considered to be the best available language for writing
mathematical scientific
Le Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:25:49 +0300, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
But authors _will_not_ learn anything other than LaTeX.
Authors will learn something else _if_ that's proven to be better. Yes,
it's true authors don't generally jump on whatever comes new (that's the
reason
Le Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:22:11 +0300, Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Maybe a number element would be valuable, both inside and outside
formulas, to provide format-neutral machine-readable numeric values:
n value=123456789.12123 456 789,12/n
But it surly seems a little
Hello!
First of all, I'd like to make it clear I am not an expert, not even a
user, of MathML, (La)TeX(ML) nor of other math-related technologies.
However, I am a daily user of Mathematica application for pure
presentational purposes (I need to write mathematical documents with
nicely
Hello!
Le Sat, 27 May 2006 19:58:28 +0300, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Some more thoughts on security of scripted documents.
Though sandboxing, as discussed earlier on this mailing list [1], would
be a powerful tool to ensure security of scripted documents, it's
Le Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:53:00 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Quoting Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure that the answers to these questions are the same for all
modern browsers.
You can speculate forever or just find out.
My small test page does some
Le Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:45:54 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
...
A DOMDocument interface has to be exposed to the contained scripts
anyway, ahy not also make it accessible from the outside?
Yes, but I'm afraid it's a technical challenge to implementors. Their
browser
Le Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:52:28 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
...
Sandboxes are quite special things, so we'll need a DOMSandbox anyway.
But instead of adding things like getElementById() to the DOMSandbox
interface, I tend to make the fake document which is visible
Le Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:16:55 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:49:17 +0600, Mihai Sucan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
No, it's not really a change in getElementBy* functions. Because there
have been no sandboxes before HTML 5, noone can really
40 matches
Mail list logo
