2011-12-06 6:54, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Yeah, it would be a pity if it had already become an widespread
cargo-cult to - all at once - use HTML5 doctype without using UTF-8
*and* without using some encoding declaration *and* thus effectively
relying on the default locale encoding ... Who does
(2011/12/06 17:39), Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2011-12-06 6:54, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Yeah, it would be a pity if it had already become an widespread
cargo-cult to - all at once - use HTML5 doctype without using UTF-8
*and* without using some encoding declaration *and* thus effectively
On Dec 5, 2011, at 23:06 , Simon Pieters wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:19:33 +0100, Brady Eidson beid...@apple.com wrote:
I can't find a definitive answer for the following scenario:
1 - A page has a plug-in with fallback specified as follows:
object type=application/x-shockwave-flash
*** Overview ***
The W3C Web Intents Task Force is working on the Web Intents API at
public-web-inte...@w3.org: see the bottom of this email for details.
Web Intents is a web platform API that provides client-side service
discovery and inter-application communication. Services register to
I would like to add that we also had a long discussion about trying to
re-use the meta element for specifying intents.
The syntax was something like:
meta name=intent-action content=http://webintents.org/share; /
meta name=intent-type content=image/* /
Pros:
* declarative
* use's existing tags
To clarify, my use of the word 'we' below is we the designers of the
API, not the participants of the Web Intents TF.
As stated in the 'API Status' section below, discussions about Web
Intents are ongoing in the TF. In addition, note that nothing is
finalized in the Web Intents API as of yet.
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:40:20 +0100, Paul Kinlan paulkin...@google.com
wrote:
I would like to add that we also had a long discussion about trying to
re-use the meta element for specifying intents.
The syntax was something like:
meta name=intent-action content=http://webintents.org/share; /
meta
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:00:36 +0100, James Hawkins jhawk...@google.com
wrote:
!ENTITY % Disposition {window|inline}
!ELEMENT INTENT - O EMPTY -- a Web Intents registration -
!ATTLIST INTENT
action %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI specifying action --
type%ContentTypes;
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Especially changing the way head is parsed is
hairy. Every new element we introduce there will cause a body to be implied
before it in down-level clients. That's very problematic.
Yes, I consider adding new elements to head to be very very bad for
2011-12-06 15:59, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
(2011/12/06 17:39), Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2011-12-06 6:54, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Yeah, it would be a pity if it had already become an widespread
cargo-cult to - all at once - use HTML5 doctype without using UTF-8
*and* without using some encoding
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Especially changing the way head is parsed is hairy. Every new element
we introduce there will cause a body to be implied before it in down-level
clients. That's very
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:14 PM, James Hawkins jhawk...@google.com wrote:
Originally we envisioned using a self-closing tag placed in head for
the intent tag; however, we're now leaning towards not using
self-closing and
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, James Hawkins wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:14 PM, James Hawkins jhawk...@google.com wrote:
Originally we envisioned using a self-closing tag placed in head for
the intent tag; however, we're now
2011-12-06 22:58, Leif Halvard Silli write:
There is now a bug, and the editor says the outcome depends on a
browser vendor to ship it:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15076
Jukka K. Korpela Tue Dec 6 00:39:45 PST 2011
what is this proposed change to defaults supposed to
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Per-Erik Brodin wrote:
Another question was raised in
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61862#c17
The origin set on the dispatched message events is specified to be the
origin of the event stream's URL. Is this the URL passed to the
EventSource constructor
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I noticed Ian updated the specification, but it seems current
implementations differ quite wildly. E.g. Gecko happily ignores
Content-Type: text/event-stream;charset=tralala
as does Opera instead of closing the connection. Chrome bites, but
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Tantek �~Gelik wrote:
Some in the microformats community have been making good use of the
time element, e.g. for publishing hCalendar, and implementing
consuming/converting hCalendar [1] with good success.
It would be great if the time element could support expressing
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no wrote:
When you say 'requires': Of course, HTML5 recommends that you declare
the encoding (via HTTP/higher protocol, via the BOM 'sideshow' or via
meta charset=UTF-8). I just now also discovered that
18 matches
Mail list logo
