On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Aug 4, 2007, at 09:41, Ian Hickson wrote:
Should I explicitly say that footnotes and endnotes shouldn't be marked up
using details?
Yes, I think it would be worthwhile to say that.
Done.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Elliotte Harold wrote:
Here's what I would ask: irrespective of presentation issues like when
and where the notes appear on the page, what is the meaning of a details
element and what is the meaning of a hypothetical footnote element? Are
they significantly different?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:40:08 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know. Currently, the only elements that use defaultFoo are
option with defaultSelected, input with defaultValue and
defaultChecked, and textarea and output with
On Aug 21, 2008, at 21:53, Ben Adida wrote:
Not to mention that our design approach was specifically tailored to
be HTML5-friendly.
It really isn't HTML5-friendly, since it depends on the namespace
mapping context at a node.
Henri Sivonen writes:
and those additions use a
Bonner, Matt wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Bonner, Matt wrote:
Hola,
I see that the Creative Commons has proposed additions to HTML
to support licenses (ccREL):
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-ccREL-20080501/
...
Tab Atkins Jr. replied:
The whole thing
Has anyone put any further thought on what to do about captions for Ogg?
We've started to throw some thoughts together here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/Captioning_Work_Plan
We could use some help from individuals who understand the area of video
and captions. The problem of
At 12:59 +0200 22/08/08, Aaron Leventhal wrote:
Has anyone put any further thought on what to do about captions for Ogg?
We've started to throw some thoughts together here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/Captioning_Work_Plan
We could use some help from individuals who understand the
On Aug 21, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Eric Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is possible to build a list of all types supported by QuickTime
dynamically. WebKit does this, so Safari knows about both the built
in types and those added by
GNU libmagic used by the command line utility file can be used for
content-type sniffing as well.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Pilgrim
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:51 AM
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: [whatwg] 2.7.4.
12. DOCTYPE declarations have to use prefixes where the corresponding
namespaces are yet undeclared. The same problem affects external CSS. This
effectively fixes the prefixes, making the redirection to the URL redundant.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
[Response to Ian and Henri in one email... but then I saw the other
responses and am breaking out the remainder responses in separate emails.]
Ian Hickson wrote:
I've whitelisted your e-mail address so that you can post to the WHATWG
list without subscribing.
Thanks Ian, I think I
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Does that actually enumerate all supported codecs? Looking at the Webkit
code and the Quicktime docs, it looks like it's just enumerating
file/container types.
On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Eric Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Does that actually enumerate all supported codecs? Looking at the
Webkit code and the Quicktime docs, it
Ian Hickson wrote:
Just to emphasise: I don't know if you trimmed the quote above just to
make your e-mail shorter or for some other reason, but the rest of the
paragraph was actually the most important part. To be explicit, the most
important details in any proposal like this are:
*
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I would like to understand exactly what changes to the existing HTML5
spec would be required to support RDFa. Ben - can you clarify? Maybe
the extension mechanism that Ian refers to already covers all the
needs, but it has not been clarified.
Thanks for the
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
A three state return is an interesting idea, but wouldn't you then be
required to return maybe for MIME types that can describe multiple
formats? For example, video/mpeg can be used to describe a video
elementary
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Ben Adida wrote:
Why would it scale any less than URIs? That's basically all URIs are.
Why would you reinvent URIs in a way that they can't be de-referenced?
Is that really a good design, in your opinion?
It seems to work well for the Java community.
I'd ask the
17 matches
Mail list logo
