Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Greg Houston gregory.hous...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Garrett: Whatever we decide when it comes to the defer

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Sean Hogan
Greg Houston wrote: This is a request for the link element to be given an onload attribute. And presumably a readyState property.

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Mike Wilson
Jonas Sicking wrote on 15 mars 2009 02:55: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Greg Houston gregory.hous...@gmail.com wrote: This is a request for the link element to be given an onload attribute. This sounds like a good idea to me. Seems useful for dynamically added stylesheets too, and

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Boris Zbarsky
Sean Hogan wrote: This is a request for the link element to be given an onload attribute. And presumably a readyState property. At least in Gecko, you can already detect whether the sheet is done loading: if you try to get its cssRules and that throws INVALID_ACCESS_ERR, then it's still

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Boris Zbarsky
Jonas Sicking wrote: This sounds like a good idea to me. Seems useful for dynamically added stylesheets too, and possibly for stylesheets where the href attribute is dynamically changed. Same thing goes for the style element since an inline stylesheet can have @import rules. Indeed, and there

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Kristof Zelechovski
Here is how to obtain the functionality of a deferred style sheet for a run-time dialogue box: the semantics of the depends attribute must be changed so that it causes all script code *except function definitions* to wait for the style sheet to load (and perhaps cause it to load as well); whereas

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Garrett Smith
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Greg Houston gregory.hous...@gmail.com

Re: [whatwg] Link.onload

2009-03-15 Thread Boris Zbarsky
Garrett Smith wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: link.onload = function() { displayDialog(Dialog Title, someObject); } Why not implement EventTarget on link? For example: link.addEventListener('load', displayDialog, true); It's the same thing.

Re: [whatwg] Canvas origin-clean should not ignore Access Control for Cross-Site Requests

2009-03-15 Thread Hans Schmucker
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:53:36 -, Hans Schmucker hansschmuc...@gmail.com wrote: Question is: what would be the best way to fix it? Of course the spec could be changed for video and image, but wouldn't it be simpler

Re: [whatwg] Canvas origin-clean should not ignore Access Control for Cross-Site Requests

2009-03-15 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:45:17 +0100, Hans Schmucker hansschmuc...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Anne, but I think this has to be dealt with primarily inside the HTML5 spec. Yes, hence me using the word aside... Anyway, ... The Access Control spec is already pretty clear on how things are

Re: [whatwg] Canvas origin-clean should not ignore Access Control for Cross-Site Requests

2009-03-15 Thread Hans Schmucker
Thank you Anne, but I think this has to be dealt with primarily inside the HTML5 spec. Yes, hence me using the word aside... Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like an attack, I really just meant to say that this (for me) belongs more into HTML5, which deals primarily with the user agent,

[whatwg] Fwd: time

2009-03-15 Thread Tom Duhamel
Re posted because accidentally posted offline (well even I can do mistakes...) -- Forwarded message -- From: Tom Duhamel tom420.duha...@gmail.com Date: Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [whatwg] time To: Robert J Burns r...@robburns.com (I saddly stripped down this very

Re: [whatwg] time (apparantly o)

2009-03-15 Thread Tom Duhamel
[I left Robert's replies in, even those I didn't have anything to reply to, because Robert originally sent the message only to me (off-list).] On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Robert J Burns r...@robburns.com wrote: - Allow only extended format: 2009-03-14 (rather than 20090314) which will

Re: [whatwg] Fwd: time

2009-03-15 Thread Aryeh Gregor
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Tom Duhamel tom420.duha...@gmail.com wrote: What about those 'other calendars of concern'? Are they reasonably compatible with Gregorian, or so much different that my example of the Mayan long count becomes a good one? I know nothing about those, but I fear it's