On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:47 +0200, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The script embedded here is so short and specific that it makes no
sense
relaying it to an external location; however, if the script is not
deferred, the script fails with an exception at run time because the
You do not place a script element after the body element:
3.6.1. The html element
Content model:
A head element followed by a body element.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexey Feldgendler
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:36 AM
Laurens Holst wrote:
So, what do you think would be needed to fix this situation.
In my dream world, IE would support dispatch by MIME type and authors who don't
care about targeting a specific plug-in binary could just stop using the classid
mess.
Would it be possible to change Mozilla’s b
Laurens Holst wrote:
One of the main reasons that is still broken on the web and why
needs to be used is Mozilla; their plugin finder doesn’t work
with .
I'm sorry, but that's false. See my other post (under "Re: element
feedback") and
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_the_Right
At 9:48 +0100 28/03/07, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora
codecs; we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them,
and we'd rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It
just gets ugly (like the 3G e
At 18:14 +0300 28/03/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:40, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I would be curious for the reasons that 3GPP has taken the requirement
of vorbis out of the spec. Was that a decision based on technical
reasons and could you please explain what these technical rea
Laurens Holst wrote:
As said, I tried a few things with embedding an image, video and SVG
with the tag:
...
First of all, one annoying thing is that you have to provide sizes,
otherwise the object will not be visible.
At least in Mozilla, this is false for images. It should become false for
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:49:41 +0200, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consider the following example:
function ha8validate(p5event) { return true }
document.forms[0].onsubmit = ha8validate
The script embedded here is so short and specific that it makes no sense
relaying it to
Henri Sivonen schrieb:
> When Nokia guys show up Open Source meetings, the FAQ about Maemo is why
> they don't ship Vorbis support. The manager of the Maemo operation has
> said that Nokia is afraid of Vorbis having some Fraunhofer-owned stuff
> in it after all, so Nokia does not want to ship Vorbi
On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:40, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I would be curious for the reasons that 3GPP has taken the requirement
of vorbis out of the spec. Was that a decision based on technical
reasons and could you please explain what these technical reasons
were?
First: I don't know about what goes
On Mar 12, 2007, at 05:27, olivier Thereaux wrote:
On Mar 11, 2007, at 02:15 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
The draft of my master's thesis is available for commenting at:
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/thesis/
Henri, congratulations on your work on the HTML conformance checker
and on the Thesis.
Thanks.
On 3/28/07, Christian F.K. Schaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 16:57 +0900, Dave Singer wrote:
> At 19:28 +0200 27/03/07, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
> Apple has
> neither power or desire to stop people implementing the video tag on
> any platform, and indeed the whole
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 16:57 +0900, Dave Singer wrote:
> At 19:28 +0200 27/03/07, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
> >
> >That is a matter of perception. Flash player which is the de-facto
> >standard at this point provides support on at least linux, windows and
> >Mac. We do risk that if this elemen
Dave Singer wrote:
Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora codecs;
we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them, and we'd
rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It just gets
ugly (like the 3G exception).
But that's circular reasoning. "We d
At 6:40 +1000 28/03/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 3/28/07, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We really feel that the HTML spec. should say no more about video and
audio formats than it does about image formats (which is merely to give
examples), and we should strive ind
At 20:30 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote:
Actually the current draft requires user agents to support PCM
in a .wav container (that's way stronger than what can be found in the
section). I guess your points apply there, too?
Yes, technically I think we should stay clean and write an HTML
16 matches
Mail list logo
