Wasn't this what, originally in LiveScript, the server (versus script)
tag was for?
There have been off-shoots of the server tag for purposes of ensuring
security. For example, server tags can run if and only if
the source of the HTML or JS is the browser's machine- thereby implementing a
kind
With canvas a relatively stable (and implemented, actually) tag, this may be
a doubtful question. However, I can't think of any answer, so here goes...
Why canvas?
Why not allow the graphics primitives to operate on any element (not just
canvas) that has a height and width that may be
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 2007 August 01 03:51
To: WeBMartians; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Why Canvas?
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:34:01 +0200, WeBMartians [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not allow the graphics primitives to operate on any element (not
just canvas) that has
until HTML 6.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Fedoniouk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 2007 July 31 20:44
To: WeBMartians; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Why Canvas?
- Original Message -
From: WeBMartians [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July
Clarification- never explicitly defined should probably be never explicitly
'limited'
The W3C documents seem to require support for, at least, GIF, JPEG, MNG
and PNG.
Apologies if this is just nit-picking.
[I'll regret saying this, but I wonder if the list can be
There is a disagreement between astronomers and historians about how to count
the years preceding year one; astronomers count the BC
years astronomically. Thus, the year before the year 1 is the year 0, and the
year preceding the latter is the year -1 (2 BC, 1 BC,
and one are, astronomically,
Is
width=0
a pathological (error) state for table?
...and, for that matter, tr, td and the other tabular tags...
I may have just missed this, but I don't see any explicit restriction on zero
(or negative) widths.
I wonder if such values could be used to allow browsers to render
Arrgh! My mistake; it's late here. Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: Tuesday, 2008 January 29 21:27
To: WeBMartians
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Question Regarding table width
On Tue, 29 Jan
There's an historical precedent that argues in favor of expanding the datetime
string.
Many calendar utilities limit the date domain to the UNIX one. Thus, entering
an anniversary for a wedding that occurred prior to 1970 is the
kiss-of-death: there is no way to determine just which
We're in a situation, here, where the HTML specification is about to say You
can specify a value, but, maybe, just maybe, you cannot show that value ...
Oh, yes, AND we're not even going to tell you when that 'maybe' is in effect!
If you can spec a value, you should be able to present it.
[Warning: begin tirade, diatribe, fulmination, harangue, jeremiad, and/or
philippic]
At the very least, ensure that the range of times (dates, durations, intervals
and times-of-day) and the granularity are well and rigorously specified.
Ensure, also, that there is a Javascript mechanism to
Believe it or not, Yes!
Consider the couple to be congratulated on their gazillionth anniversary. Is
that diamond, gold, platinum? Whatever it is, if your
date time system is limited to epoch 1970, you're out of luck. That's why I
claim that restrictions (rigorously documented) are OK
as long
The big VoDS (Broadbus/Motorola, SeaChange, Arroyo...) do not offer audio when
the play rate is anything other than +1.0.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Fraser
Sent: Thursday, 2008 August 07 18:52
To: Charles Iliya Krempeaux
...not sure if the following has been noted; if so, apologies...
Currently, animated GIF and MNG images are used, sometimes, in loop forever
form. Assuming that video might be used in an
analogous fashion, loop-forever should be supported.
I shudder to think about looping audio, however.
Vanguard Investments has an interesting approach:
1- User enters an identification but not a password
This page is an HTTPS one, by the way.
2- On a subsequent page (also HTTPS), the user enters the password
Additionally, there is an identifying image that is associated with the user:
Somewhere, is there a definition of trust in this context? I say that in all
seriousness; it's not a facetious remark. I feel that
it might be useful.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eduard Pascual
Sent: Tuesday, 2008 October 21 19:40
My sincere thanks for taking up this issue! Having to build applications for
both mobile as well as stationary clients, I claim that
the onchange behavior, as implemented (differently) across the browser
spectrum, is most frustrating. Generally, I've just punted
and implemented something based
Asbjørn, while I can't give you a message-list, please believe me when I say
that the HTML5 specifications on this are the result of
quite a bit of discussion and IMHO represent a reasonable compromise between
driving the developers crazy and supporting dates and
times back to the Cenozoic era.
It's back! It won't die! :-)
Although it can be argued that a standard should not consider the work required
for implementation, many of the trade-offs in reference to times and dates do
indeed take the present state of code into consideration.
One reason for not supporting BCE is a
that are represented by strings of more than four
characters: years preceding 999 BCE (or 1000 BCE?) or
subsequent to CE.
-Original Message-
From: David Singer [mailto:sin...@apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2009 February 24 15:12
To: WeBMartians; 'Andy Mabbett'; 'WHATWG List'
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Dates
Hmmm... Maybe it would be better to say ISO-646US rather than ASCII.
There is a lot of impreciseness about the very low value characters
(less than 0x20 space) in the ASCII specifications. The same can be
said about the higher end.
===
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Yuzo Fujishima
For comment 3, simply reference the use cases for Microsoft's AfxMsgBox,
::MessageBox and its derivatives. The time out is a well-received idea.
As to comment 2, I agree that the various traps put in place are
exceptionally annoying. An alternative would be a forced closing via the
browser
to be accompanied by
affection and great respect)!
BdG/WeBMartians
===
On 2011-03-01 19:46, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
Well we can't remove support for them from browsers, since millions of
pages use them. Conformance checkers can't
23 matches
Mail list logo
