Hello!
I'd say it is safe to say that using quotation marks for attribute
values, always, except perhaps for collapsed, boolean attributes, has
been regarded as best practice for a long time now. Speaking as an
instructor for newbies, enforcing quotation marks has proven its value
countless
On 23 Jul 2009, at 13:35, Keryx Web wrote:
I'd say it is safe to say that using quotation marks for attribute
values, always, except perhaps for collapsed, boolean attributes,
has been regarded as best practice for a long time now. Speaking as
an instructor for newbies, enforcing quotation
I'd say it is safe to say that using quotation marks for attribute values,
always, except perhaps for collapsed, boolean attributes, has been regarded
as best practice for a long time now.
This always rather seemed like a preference to me, one that gets
supported by consistency considerations
By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5
project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the
future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the
decision comes at a time when many working with Web standards have taken
issue with
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:58:30 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I don't know of a reason it's needed for collections other than
document.all. But it also doesn't seem harmful and I can't say
definitively whether it helps anything. I wouldn't object to removing it
from the
On Thursday 2009-07-23 09:48 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/a-new-way-forward/
I have a few thoughts on this document.
The above document says:
# The single greatest complaint heard from the standards community
# concerning the development of HTML5 is that it has
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5
project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the
future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the
However, the quotation marks being *sometimes* optional is quite
dangerous, since an author needs to exactly remember when they are
needed and when they aren't; and using always quotation marks does
avoid this problem.
If author does not remember he can always use quotes and avoid
this
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Rimantas Liubertasriman...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the quotation marks being *sometimes* optional is quite
dangerous, since an author needs to exactly remember when they are
needed and when they aren't; and using always quotation marks does
avoid this
Manu Sporny wrote:
By halting the XHTML2 work and announcing more resources for the HTML5
project, the World Wide Web Consortium has sent a clear signal on the
future markup language for the Web: it will be HTML5. Unfortunately, the
decision comes at a time when many working with Web standards
These sections have very different wordings given the fact that they
directly correspond to each other.
Maybe change
Contexts in which this element may be used to
Content models in which this element may be used.
--
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you
The algorithm for stepUp() and stepDown() doesn't seem to take into account the
n parameter to those methods. The delta value used is the allowed step value;
shouldn't delta actually be the allowed step value multiplied by n? Or am I
missing something here?
Cheers,
kats
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Keryx Webwebmas...@keryx.se wrote:
Hello!
I'd say it is safe to say that using quotation marks for attribute values,
always, except perhaps for collapsed, boolean attributes, has been regarded
as best practice for a long time now. Speaking as an instructor for
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
Add:
In order to avoid errors and increase readability, using quotes is highly
recommended for all non-omitted attribute values.
I don't think there's any value in having the spec take a stance like
this. It's a
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:32:28 +0100, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think there's any value in having the spec take a stance like
this. It's a matter of taste, IMO.
While I don't consider a hard requirement would be appropriate, there
is an audience sector this discussion
L. David Baron wrote:
The above document says:
# The single greatest complaint heard from the standards community
# concerning the development of HTML5 is that it has not allowed
# for the scientific process.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A key part of a scientific
The description for what to do on setting valueAsNumber doesn't fully cover
error conditions. It's not clear to me, for instance, what's supposed if you
have an input type=date or type=number and try to set valueAsNumber to NaN.
The description there (for date) just says ... passing it a Date
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.comwrote:
contribute ideas: great!
scrutinize them: wonderful!
form consensus: fail (but that's what the W3C is for, right?)
produce: fail (unless we don't want to scale the community)
Ian is really the only one that is
That sounds perfect, thanks.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
snip
I've made it so that you can specify * in the online whitelist section
to basically open it up to anything.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Spornymspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
I can git clone the Linux kernel, mess around with it and submit a patch
to any number of kernel maintainers. If that patch is rejected, I can
still share the changes with others in the community. Using the same
Manu Sporny wrote:
form consensus: fail (but that's what the W3C is for, right?)
From what I've read, there's only one issue of major importance where
consensus has failed to form, namely the Great Codecs Debate. And as
representatives have decried the other's positions as complete
non-starters
That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting.
I'm not quite sure what the
UI would look like, but if anyone has any ideas, feel free to e-mail me
directly and we can figure something out. (This would be exceedingly
useful once we're in last call in a few months.)
Ian,
Other
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
From what I heard so far it is there because of document.all. If document.all
does indeed need to return a separate object as HTML5 suggests we can probably
remove it from HTMLCollection in due course.
Given that the namedItem behavior of document.all is different
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Justin Lebar wrote:
That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting.
I'm not quite sure what the UI would look like, but if anyone has any
ideas, feel free to e-mail me directly and we can figure something
out. (This would be exceedingly useful once we're
I think we need an approach that doesn't involve in-flow links...
I'm just
not sure what the right solution is. Maybe alt-double-clicking
should show
a menu with two options, submit comment here or change section
status?
Alt-Double Click doesn't sound very discoverable. Even if I knew
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Justin Lebar wrote:
That being said, inline spec comments sound interesting.
I'm not quite sure what the UI would look like, but if anyone has any
ideas, feel free to e-mail me directly and we can figure something
out. (This would be exceedingly
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
That sounds to me like a good reason to declare a freeze at last call,
and release an immutable beta 1 on which comments can be made. Then
close the comment period on beta 1, and (potentially) release a beta 2,
etc.
27 matches
Mail list logo
