On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
I don't see any documentation that requires XHTML to not support
display.write, but it certainly is a reality that nobody has done
so.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#document.write1
(I'd like to make it work, but
Ian Hickson:
Validators are allowed to give any warnings or notes
they like. (The spec only specifies that a validator
must give no errors if there are no errors and must
give at least one error if there are any, IIRC.)
Is it possible for the spec to suggest/recommend that validators
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
Ian Hickson:
Validators are allowed to give any warnings or notes
they like. (The spec only specifies that a validator
must give no errors if there are no errors and must
give at least one error if there are any, IIRC.)
Is it possible for
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
xmlns attributes are invalid on HTML elements except html, and
when found on unrecognized [elements] imply style=display:none
unless you recognize the value of this attribute.
There are millions of documents that would be broken by
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
The common pattern that I see is that xmlns=.
It's certainly the more common value, but it is by no means the only one,
as you will see if you examine the various examples I gave in more detail.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
The common pattern that I see is that xmlns=.
It's certainly the more common value, but it is by no means the only one,
as you will see if you examine the various examples I gave in more detail.
My bad. Point made.
- Sam Ruby
Ian Hickson wrote:
| [HTML5] is the format recommended for most authors. [...] Generally
| speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use XML on the Web,
| because XML has much stricter syntax rules than the HTML5 variant
| described above [...]
--
Ian Hickson wrote:
IMHO that's the kind of thing that belongs on the wiki
or as an opinion piece on the blog (feel free to post
either). But the spec should stay out of the way of
such arguments.
Well, I can't go beyond that. But please realize that if the spec did
include it, even if it
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
The HTML5 parser would pass anything within XMLDATA elements to an
XML parser and insert whatever it returns into the response stream.
This could allow SVG and MathML to work, no?
What's the use case?
The use-case is to allow abitrary
Le 5 déc. 2006 à 17:03, Ian Hickson a écrit :
The one target now is HTML5.
I wonder about one thing though. If the recommended serialization is
HTML5, why is there new features which are simply not supported by
HTML5 (list inside paragraphs, nested forms, etc.)? My impression is
that
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Michel Fortin wrote:
The one target now is HTML5.
I wonder about one thing though. If the recommended serialization is
HTML5, why is there new features which are simply not supported by HTML5
(list inside paragraphs, nested forms, etc.)? My impression is that
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
Case in point:
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/12/01/The-White-Pebble
In IE, there's some stray XHTML HTML and XHTML HTML XML text. This
isn't acceptable to most people. It certainly isn't something that it
would make sense to
Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't see any documentation that requires XHTML to not support
display.write, but it certainly is a reality that nobody has done so.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#document.write1
(I'd like to make it work, but can't work out how to specify it. If
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
Case in point:
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/12/01/The-White-Pebble
In IE, there's some stray XHTML HTML and XHTML HTML XML text. This
isn't acceptable to most people. It certainly isn't something that it
would make sense to
On 12/5/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case there is anybody here who doesn't faithfully follow my blog
grin, I have prototyped MathML + SVG + XLINK in HTML4:
... [modify parser]...
This could be designed in such a way that
it was only enabled as an about:config option. Where I
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
Ian Hickson wrote:
I've been having a lot of trouble following this
discussion Are there other requests? What are they?
1.) Minimize the changes *required* for existing documents to validate as
HTML5
2.) Provide strategies that make transitionality possible, and provide
incentives for moving
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:55:32 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Possible Request D: We want HTML-style graceful error handling for XML
content.
This is out of scope of the HTML5 specification. Speak to the XML guys.
XML currently requires draconian error handling and has no defined
Ian Hickson wrote:
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 knows what they are arguing for or against.
I've changed
Ian Hickson wrote:
* Possible Request A: We want a way to add proprietary markup to HTML
documents, and have them be usable by text/html browsers.
This won't work, because the browsers won't support that proprietary
markup. This has nothing to do with the specs. (The same problem exists in
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Secondly, anyone who actually tried to use an SGML parser to handle HTML
rapidly hit a wall since most HTML documents were not even close to
actually conformant to the SGML spec or the HTML DTD.
Exactly. And the *exact same
Ian Hickson wrote:
What is it about XML that you like, that you don't get with HTML, that
makes you request that we make HTML more like XML?
I'm not sure which HTML you're talking about here, but
1. A reliable, practical tool chain including XSLT
2. Extensibility. I want to embed the
Ian Hickson wrote:
In the Web Apps 1.0 world, an HTTP message whose headers say text/html is
an HTML document, regardless of what sequence of bytes the body of the
message actually say. An HTTP message whose headers say text/xml, or use
some other XML MIME type, is an XML document. It's the
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
Use XHTML, send it with an HTML MIME type, and be happy.
No!
Why not? What's wrong with doing that?
Well, it's impossible. If you _think_ you're using XHTML, but you process
it with an HTML processor (e.g. by sending it as
Ian Hickson wrote:
Consider that essentially every page generated by Blogger, Moveable Type
or WordPress is not hand authored.
Actually, all those _are_ hand authored. They all use templates that were
very carefully written by HTML authors by hand.
Almost every page at sites like
Elliotte Harold wrote:
That means I have to send text/html to browsers (because that's the only
thing they understand) and let my clients ignore that hint.
No.
As I understand it, the full chain of events should look like this:
[Internal data model in server]
|
James Graham wrote:
As I understand it, the full chain of events should look like this:
[Internal data model in server]
|
|
HTML 5 Serializer
|
|
{Network}
|
|
HTML 5
James Graham wrote:
Elliotte Harold wrote:
That means I have to send text/html to browsers (because that's the
only thing they understand) and let my clients ignore that hint.
No.
As I understand it, the full chain of events should look like this:
[Internal data model in server]
Sam Ruby wrote:
James Graham wrote:
[Internal data model in server]
|
|
HTML 5 Serializer
|
|
{Network}
|
|
HTML 5 Parser
|
|
Le 4 déc. 2006 à 2:55, Ian Hickson 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 knows what they are arguing for
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:10:18 +0100, Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I suggested xml:lang before, but that was when I thought it was
parsed in HTML. Now I think a more clever approach would be to allow
html:lang to validate in XHTML, because XHTML already mandates that
Le 4 déc. 2006 à 11:14, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
For the record. There's no such thing as a lang attribute in the
HTML namespace. Except perhaps in some schema's the HTML WG at the
W3C is producing but those can safely be ignored.
Indeed, it's the lang attribute with no namespace I
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 4 déc. 2006 à 12:30, Mihai Sucan a écrit :
html lang=fr xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml;
head
titleSans titre/title
/head
body
pBonjour à tous!/p
p lang=roBună ziua tuturor!/p
pimg src=merci.png alt=Merci! id=mon-image //p
/body
/html
Nice example Mihai.
To reformulate my previous
Sam Ruby wrote:
[snip]
HTML5 can do one better. Instead of handling presentational MathML as a
special case, this support can be generalized. When a non-HTML element
is encountered inside a HTML document, the parser could make one
additional check: does this attribute have a xmlns attribute
[I unintentionally sent my previous message off-list. Sorry about that. Am
moving this back to the list again. As there's nothing personal in it, I
assume that's OK.]
At 18:37 + UTC, on 2006-12-04, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...]
[smiley to
Michel Fortin wrote:
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 them as meaningless. Just for
validation purposes, just for
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Dec 4, 2006, at 22:34, Ian Hickson wrote:
The fact that my weblog and my planet are usefully viewable on Lynx is a
counter example that is meaningful to me.
My point is that if you used HTML5 instead, you would have _more_ features
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ian Hickson wrote:
It also doesn't work that well. I'd be interested to see what happened
in IE if the SVG used the SVG 1.2 textArea feature. Or if it used the
SVG text and tSpan features.
Case in point:
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/12/01/The-White-Pebble
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 12/4/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It certainly isn't something that it would make sense to encourage.
Is this different than what IE does with canvas?
Yes, because with canvas the feature has been carefully designed to have
Sam Ruby wrote:
James Graham wrote:
As I understand it, the full chain of events should look like this:
[Internal data model in server]
|
|
HTML 5 Serializer
|
|
{Network}
|
|
At 20:46 + UTC, on 2006-12-04, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...]
[ESP engines]
Surely you're not saying that HTML5 will define error handling for every
possible case a UA may run into?
Yes. In fact, not only will it define this, it already _does_
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#parsing
Still, I don't see how this makes it not guesswork.
Well, if you want to call well-defined interoperable error handling
guesswork, then sure. I guess that's just terminology.
The
Le 4 déc. 2006 à 14:33, Martin Atkins a écrit :
Likewise, the content model of the script element is hardcoded
into the parser; there's no way to discover it from the syntax
alone. (I'll admit that there's no similar construct to the content
model of script in XML, however, so this
Le 4 déc. 2006 à 17:19, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
I agree, but how are xml:lang, xml:base and xml:id any more
meaningless in HTML than xmlns?
In XHTML you can avoid using xml:base (by not specifying a base) and
xml:id (by using id). You can't avoid xmlns. That's why I think xmlns
comes
Ian Hickson schrieb:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 12/4/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It certainly isn't something that it would make sense to encourage.
Is this different than what IE does with canvas?
Yes, because with canvas the feature has been carefully designed
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Julian Reschke wrote:
Ian Hickson schrieb:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 12/4/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It certainly isn't something that it would make sense to encourage.
Is this different than what IE does with canvas?
Yes,
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 knows what they are arguing for or against.
I've changed the spec to allow a
201 - 248 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
