Paweł Stradomski wrote:
W liście Robert O'Rourke z dnia czwartek 28 lutego 2008:
Paweł Stradomski wrote:
div class=steps
input href=/basket.html class=basket-step value=Basket /
input href=/checkout.html class=current checkout-step
value=Checkout / input type=submit
Philip Taylor wrote:
On 28/02/2008, Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A global attribute offers several features that a
does not - most importantly nested links and the ability to hyperlink
block and interactive elements without breaking validation.
Are there cases where div ...a
Dave Hodder wrote:
The current HTML 5 draft doesn't mention ARIA anywhere. Perhaps it
should clarify the relationship (or non-relationship as it is at
present), even if it's only a brief mention in section 1.1.
Unfortunately a brief mention is insufficient as aria functionality
overlaps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like something to indicate that text should not be rendered by the UA
but still remain accessible. Content that should be available to screen readers
but not have a visual representation is, in fact, relevant.
Indeed, which is why such content would not have
Dnia 29-02-2008, Pt o godzinie 01:21 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
In 8.2.2.4, I have no idea what's the reason or purpose of point 1,
which reads If the new encoding is UTF-16, change it to UTF-8.. I
suspect some misunderstanding.
This is required because many pages are labelled as
On 29 Feb 2008, at 16:33, Julian Reschke wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
It seems like the HTTP spec should define how to handle that, but
the HTTP working group has indicated a desire to not specify
error handling behaviour, so I guess it's up to us.
IE and Safari use the first one,
On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:29, Shannon wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
While yes, you could rely on something like that, it totally
breaks in any user agent without scripting support. Nothing else, to
my knowledge, in HTML 5 leads to total loss of functionality without
JavaScript whatsoever.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Nicholas Zakas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. A section and a
division. I hate to consult a dictionary on this, but one definition for
section is subdivision. The naming alone does not make it clear what the
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
Content-Type: XML
Content-Type: text/XML
Using the first would break badly. I guess it seems to work because of
content-type sniffing on an unknown (and invalid) header
Or because the header parser uses the first header that actually looks like a
valid content-type
If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in accessibility,
then I think the name is completely wrong. The term irrelevant is confusing
because, as I stated before, why would anyone include content in a page that is
irrelevant? What you really need is a way to say this is
On 28/02/2008, Robert O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't understand why buttons should not be allowed an href, obviously
when the button or input is to submit a form (ie. explicitly having
type=submit as an attribute) it shouldn't be allowed but I'd find it
useful where I've had to
On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
- Again there, shouldn't we be given unicode codepoints for that (as
it'll be a unicode string)?
Not sure what you mean.
This is just me being incredibly dumb. Ignore it.
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The draft says:
A
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote (with snippage):
In HTML5, the hx hierarchy is explicitly ignored. Instead, they're
all treated the same. The actual heading level is determined by
section nesting.
That doesn't sound correct to me. If they were all the same we could
drop h1 to h6 and just use h.
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:54:08 +0100, Nicholas C. Zakas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in
accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term
irrelevant is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone
include
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Dave Hodder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote (with snippage):
In HTML5, the hx hierarchy is explicitly ignored. Instead, they're
all treated the same. The actual heading level is determined by
section nesting.
That doesn't sound correct
From this thread, it seems like the true purpose of irrelevant is to add to
HTML the logical equivalent of display:none in CSS. If that is true, then I'd
agree with Jeff that renaming the attribute ignore or omit is a good idea.
Can anyone either confirm or deny the purpose of this attribute as
As discussed earlier this week, the dialog/ element is confusing in that the
term dialog in software engineering typically means dialog window. I first
thought the element was a way to indicate that a part of the page was used as a
dialog rather than part of the normal content flow. I
From this description, it seems like the section/ element has little use. If
you're talking about writing articles, most authors consider the start and end
of sections as implicitly defined by headings. Making this explicit seems
unnecessary so long as headings are still available and used.
Sorry for the double for those of you on both lists. I sent a reply to
the wrong mailing list again :(
On 01/03/2008, Nicholas C. Zakas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From this description, it seems like the section/ element has little use.
If you're talking about writing articles, most authors
19 matches
Mail list logo
