This may just be another one of my crazy ideas, but web applications
are increasingly using resizable elements such as resizable windows,
resizable form columns, image croppers and so forth. Currently this
requires injecting one or more handles into the element you wish to
resize and absolutely
Smylers wrote:
Bill Mason writes:
Simon Pieters wrote:
For instance it would be reasonable to use two images -- a filled
star and an unfilled star -- to represent a rating of something:
p Rating: img src=1 img src=1 img src=1 img src=0
img src=0 /p
You'd want the text version to
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:40:20 +0200, Greg Houston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, I realize this may not be feasible, but thought I would throw
the idea out there.
Is this what you're looking for:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#resize
?
While on the topic of borders, it
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple; If all elements in an
Greg Houston wrote:
While on the topic of borders, it would also be nice if there was a
CSS property for their alignment, outside as is the current default,
and inside. Pushing my luck, I would like to see the same options
for the strokes in the canvas element with the addition of center
which
Hi Anne,
Thanks. I need to read through the various CSS3 specs.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this what you're looking for:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#resize
This fulfills the basic idea, though the spec seems to leave
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:58:35 +0200, Greg Houston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#resize
This fulfills the basic idea, though the spec seems to leave the
resize mechanism up to the imaginations of the UAs. All it says is
that the resize mechanism is
Shannon wrote:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple; If all
Shannon writes:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple;
HTML5 had a complex mechanism for cross-references using dfn, abbr,
i, and so forth. I've removed it. It really didn't add much compared to
a href= other than a whole lot of complexity, and there was very
little demand for it really. I've also made the title= attribute on
abbr required, and
Regarding a couple of the new UI elements in HTML5, it is not clear to
me from the spec if the meter and progress elements are purely UA
designed elements or if the developer has control over their styling.
You can probably style them using XBL in due course. They are similar to
form
Summary: no changes made. If anyone has a better idea for a name for the
element, let me know. meter is a little confusing to people, but
gauge, which would be better, is just too hard to type for people.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, David Latapie wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:39:54 +0100, Anne van
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Just a few issues regarding the use of abbr and dfn elements.
*The abbr Element's title Attribute*
I think the title attribute should also be allowed to be omitted from
the abbr element if there is another abbr element with a title
Shannon wrote:
What about this as a possible solution?
img src=part1.png altgroup=rating
img src=part2.png altgroup=rating
img src=part3.png altgroup=rating
altgroup id=rating value=3/5
I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
logic is quite simple;
Bill
William F Hammond wrote:
1. Many search engines appear not to look at application/xhtml+xml.
That seems like a much simpler thing to fix in search engines than in
the specification and UAs, to be honest. I don't see this as a
compelling reason to add complexity to the parsing model.
2.
15 matches
Mail list logo
