On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:38:34 +0100, Sean Hogan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be missing something obvious, but...
When are ValidityState properties updated? And when are CSS
pseudo-classes (:valid, :invalid, :in-range, :out-of-range) updated? The
spec doesn't say, so I tentatively
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:58:35 +0100, Mikko Rantalainen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that aside and small are different from de-emphasis (that
would be dem IMHO). However, the dem element wouldn't be that often
used and it would be vital for it to be easily implemented. A new
element
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:01:35 +0530, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:55:51 +0530, David Latapie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:07:49 +0100, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
- LH (caption for list! A must-have)
Why not using the title attribute?
Do you mean ul
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:58:35 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Please, how do you implement these features with CSS? I hope you're
not suggesting to add a specialized code path to support just
emphasis and de-emphasis.
I believe that aside and small are different from de-emphasis
(that
On Feb 9, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:55:51 +0530, David Latapie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:07:49 +0100, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
- LH (caption for list! A must-have)
Why not using the title attribute?
Do you mean ul
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:42:58 +0100, Jorgen Horstink wrote:
I totally agree. But then I would suggest to use some sort of title
element. But that would not make sense because it conflicts with Hx.
But if we want something like LH for lists, the question is; aren't
there other elements which
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:12:58 +0530, Jorgen Horstink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I understand the issue, but why not using some sort of semantic
binding between Hx's and the list? Is there some sort of Semantic
Binding Language somewhere out there? I've never got the point of the
for attribute.
Le 9 févr. 2007 à 21:42, Jorgen Horstink a écrit :
I totally agree. But then I would suggest to use some sort of title
element. But that would not make sense because it conflicts with
Hx. But if we want something like LH for lists, the question is;
aren't there other elements which can use
On 9 Feb 2007, at 07:47, Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 8 févr. 2007 à 20:17, Nicholas Shanks a écrit :
On 6 Feb 2007, at 07:57, Karl Dubost wrote:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_1.html
I wish the imagefallback/image tags had made it through the
years. It's so much better than img
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:31:30 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:53:06 +0100, David Latapie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. For images, I use a definition list
dd = image
dt = description
(in that order, since I want a bottom caption)
FWIW, this is totally wrong. (For
David Latapie wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:58:35 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
ignore and is usually orthogonal to the rest of the content. small
is something you usually skip but you must be aware of the content
(e.g. a copyright or license boilerplate) - the key here is that the
content
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
David Latapie wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:58:35 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
ignore and is usually orthogonal to the rest of the content.
small is something you usually skip but you must be aware of
the content (e.g. a copyright or
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:21:22 -0500, David Walbert wrote:
This side comment is already de-emphasized, because it is in
parentheses -- the standard print convention (in English, at least)
for de-emphasizing text within the flow of other text. Since there is
already a typographical marker of
Responding, generally, to this discussion of de-emphasis:
In looking for a print analog the only common cases I can think of
for de-emphasized text are notes (footnotes, endnotes, etc.) and
parenthetical text. HTML 5 already has elements for asides notes.
As for parentheses, if the
David Walbert wrote:
As for parentheses, if the typical web author wants to insert
parenthetical text and is writing in a language that uses parentheses,
he/she will use parentheses. They're obvious, they're available from
the keyboard. If one marked a piece of text as parenthetical using an
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
Yes, like it, but with a different name. A nicer name than IMG. One
with three vowels. One that only accepts image/* content types. One
with a more specific usage that can be controlled independently of
OBJECT through CSS 1/2.
Strictly, you don't really need a
As another general comment on this discussion, I will say that I
agree with David Walbert's observations that it is impossible to to
de-emphasize something. However, I believe that what some means
here by de-emphasising something is that they want to *emphasize the
unimportance* of what
Hello,
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:43:08 -0500, David Walbert wrote:
There are three pieces of de-emphasized text here: one with
font-size: 80%, one with opacity: 0.8, and one with opacity: 0.6. I
know where the de-emphasized text is, so it's easy for me to find,
but the small-print and 60%
- Début du message transféré -
smallPart of the thread that was accidentally sent privately, not on
the list
It may be worth reading for other, so I transfer/small
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:40:32 -0500, Michel Fortin wrote:
That was my idea of what you were doing. With this syntax there's
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:33:55 +, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
The ultimate reason few
authors use the Q element is that it was poorly specified, above all in
that no requirement was laid upon user-agents to make use of its CITE
attribute and no mechanism was provided to connect a Q element
On 9 Feb 2007, at 15:51, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
Yes, like OBJECT, but with a different name. A nicer name than
IMG. One
with three vowels. One that only accepts image/* content types. One
with a more specific usage that can be controlled independently of
OBJECT
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
Lets not confuse emphasis and importance. Emphasis defines how much something
is stressed. We have
to remember that importance does not change the meaning of content. Something
that is emphasized
is stressed more in relation to other things. Something that
On 9 Feb 2007, at 17:19, David Latapie wrote:
- small: It does not cope well inline. I (almost) never use small in a
paragraph; I use it for one-liners, e.g. smallsource:/small or
smallNo this is a long post, right?/small
Agreed, when I use small, which these days is just for things like
Jonathan Worent wrote:
The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of
elements in the spec right
now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec because they have merit.
No, the argument that no one would use it is important. More elements =
--- James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Worent wrote:
The argument that no-one would use it is pointless. There are plenty of
elements in the spec
right
now that aren't likely to be used often, but they're still in the spec
because they have
merit.
No, the argument
Le 2007-02-09 à 14:21, Jonathan Worent a écrit :
That was brought but a as secondary argument (still a valid point
IMHO). My original use case was for transcribing dialog. This was
something I was trying to do when I originally purposed it back in
Aug. 07.
Can I suggest a whisper element
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:43:17 +0100, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was originally just making an off-the-cuff hostile remark about
IMG, but the more i think about it the more I dislike them pesky and
restrictive alt attributes!
They are, for one, backwards compatible. (Even though
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I agree that m should be dropped. I believe such an element
has never been requested before on www-html or equivalent fora.
No, the use cases for m are clear, and it is different from both em
and strong. I think it should be kept as-is, though its definition
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:36:25 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I think I agree that m should be dropped. I believe such an element
has never been requested before on www-html or equivalent fora.
No, the use cases for m are clear, and it is different from
David Latapie wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:36:25 +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
m marks a point of interest for future reference, it does not
denote importance. Everyone seems to be focussing on the definition
of highlight meaning emphasis as their argument that it is the same
as em and/or
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:21:39 +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I think your putting too much
emphasis on the word future. The google cache highlights the word
as a reference for the user, which is exactly what this element is
for. It doesn't matter whether the user looks at it immediately, in
Le 2007-02-09 à 16:36, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
No, the use cases for m are clear, and it is different from both
em and strong. I think it should be kept as-is, though its
definition in the spec clearly needs to be improved.
Suggestion of an improvement to the spec:
The m element
Le 2007-02-09 à 12:32, David Latapie a écrit :
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:40:32 -0500, Michel Fortin wrote:
That was my idea of what you were doing. With this syntax there's no
association between the description and the image, I'm not sure you
caught that from my explanation though.
I did not.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 22:17:54 -0500, Michel Fortin wrote:
that the two parts (term and description) were meant to appear in
this particular order within a definition list because you cannot
formalize the term/description association if you allow dt and dd
to appear in any order.
Are you
34 matches
Mail list logo
