On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Pentasis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I seem to have a few problems here, but nothing I cannot handle. For some
> reason I get my e-mails later than I should and they are working on the
> electricity grid here, so I have no power during the day (only at nigh
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>>
>> Can somebody put forward any technical argument against this idea?
>
> For my benefit, could you succintly summarise the changes that this would
> involve to the spec? I'm not su
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>
> Can somebody put forward any technical argument against this idea?
For my benefit, could you succintly summarise the changes that this would
involve to the spec? (Not the exact wording, but a basic overview of what
you see being added or changed.) I
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Philipp Serafin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Leons Petrazickis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It matters in the sense that web browsers would have to implement both
>> approaches for backwards compatibility.
>>
>
> This depends what y
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Leons Petrazickis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It matters in the sense that web browsers would have to implement both
> approaches for backwards compatibility.
>
This depends what you mean when talking about "implementing" a tag.
Browsers already load all tags and a
This would only work in new browsers and is wordy:
someword.
It doesn't add any extra information. It's harder to use.
Conceptually, it may be more elegant, but conceptual elegance is not
an impetus for large scale adoptions. In my opinion, it is not a
worthwhile change to pursue, when there ar
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Pentasis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am not sure whether I understand you correctly... Of course the
>> practical use of a specification lies in its technical implementations, or
>> do you disagree with that? You are free to specify your own markup language,
>> b
Pentasis schrieb:
This I understand, and I can even sympathise with it. However, I do hope
that at least "they" will take this issue seriously and at least try to
build in something that will enable "us" to work on that part of the spec
independantly later on. I still think that the semantic
