Instead of:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr / --
citeWilliam Hazlitt/cite/li
Consider:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr /
(William Hazlitt)/li
Reads equally good, if not better.
Bibliographic references are a topic of its own, and it is not
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:00:28 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I don't think hgroup will be used often enough to justify calling it
just h.
Ok, but what about subheader? (subtitle, tagline?)
The purpose of hgroup is to imply that hx is a subtitle. That's quite
an indirection. An
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand,
a simple
code lang=xml/html
could be used to introduce the pre and all the lt; s
This is the one part of the suggestion that I could possibly see being
introduced in the language, but the benefit
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
and this License would be to refrain entirely from
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly
or indirectly through you, then the only way you
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Library by all those who
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, King InuYashangomp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
For example, if a patent license would not
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, King InuYashangomp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com
wrote:
Also sprach Daniel Berlin:
I get parsing errors in my brain when reading this. While I understand
that you do not impose any new restrictions (as per #10), I still
don't understand how you can claim that #11 (the first two quotes
above) has no relevance in your case. To me, it seems
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
understand your reasoning.
I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going to have to
agree to disagree, because it's clear neither of us are going
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Daniel Berlindan...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Håkon Wium Liehowc...@opera.com wrote:
This if statement seems to be true, and I therefore still don't
understand your reasoning.
I've explained my position and reasoning, and we are going
At this point I feel like we're giving open source advice to teams
outside of Google, which is beyond our mission. We're comfortable with
our compliance mission and feel it is accurate and correct. Other
companies and people need to make their own decisions about
compliance.
Chris
On Sun, Jun 7,
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point I feel like we're giving open source advice to teams
outside of Google, which is beyond our mission. We're comfortable with
our compliance mission and feel it is accurate and correct. Other
companies and
To me, it seems more like Google doesn't really want to take a position in
the matter regarding codecs and is taking the weird way out by using
ffmpeg. Given Google's dominance in search, which tends to bring people to
at least look at Google's products, anything Google does is examined with a
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Chris DiBona cdib...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I think we've taken a very clear position on compliance but...
[snip]
This is really a matter for the spec to handle one way or another, not
Google.
Chris
Compliance does not mean taking a position. It just
15 matches
Mail list logo
