live without it (or, more
likely, toss in a @data-* attribute, and loop through elements bound to the
menu to hack in the double-click handlers).
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On 28 November 2012 01:12, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
(If you're cc'ed, your opinion likely affects implementations
form element class
for such a purpose?
Example:
p id=errYou've to fill all required fields/p
form:invalid #err {
display: block;
}
This would be more a CSS Selectors concern, and there are already some
ideas at [1] that would address this.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
[1]: http
a sort of compromise would be implemented: checking for invalid
individual elements and, if the onsubmit handler is known to not
trigger side-effects, check it as well. But this sounds more like a
hack.
Is there something I am missing?
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
previous posts then.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
recall any right now.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
things different
from what we already have. As a minor advantage, implementors can
reuse (or copy-paste) some few lines of parsing code instead of
writting them again, since they already parse the header when they get
it on an HTTP response.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/3/11 9:16 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
Ok, I have never even thought about using the filename argument with
an explicit inline disposition. When I am in control of the headers,
I find it easier to fix the filename
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/3/11 10:39 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010
Wouldn't that default (in the absence of a Content-disposition) to
generate_progress_report.php as the filename
be justified, but it is solved with style scoped, as
explained above.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
: *; } in the future.
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
as possible as Content-Disposition: attachment:
anything else would go against user's expectations (example: if a user
normally gets a Save/Open/Cancel dialog when accessing a zip file,
then any in-page feature to save a zip file should present the same
dialog).
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
' proposal allows for more than my use-case (actually, my intent
was to propose adding something to data: urls rather than to a
elements, which may point anywhere); but I don't see any reason why
the link with such attribute would be more dangerous than without it.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
.
It seems that you are only concerned about avoiding duplication of
content for the href and the content of the element. Your proposal
puts the stuff on the content, while the CSS-based solution would put
it on the href; but both put it only once.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
, it seems you are trying to use
the src resource of an img element before it's available. I'm no
jQuery expert, so I can't tell for sure; but you may check it out by
running your code from html's onload event instead of the document
ready event.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
of
compatibility; but there are some aspects, like the sectioning model,
that trigger serious issues on the authoring perspective.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
to share
their opinions in the meanwhile ;-)
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, if we try to implement the outlining algorithm in
the form of selectors that match each level of headings we have:
On the case
: on a
public place while abroad), the UA adding locale-specific stuff to a
phone value is very likely to render whole forms unusables.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 01:28 +0200, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
If there was a true standard, then the spec would refer to that, but as
you say, it's
that is not the local system.
This issue should be addressed if something like that is to be usable:
if we face the choice of broken pages vs. security flaw, the idea will
be already a failure. However, I have no idea of how to approach this.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Doug Schepers d...@schepers.cc wrote:
I don't think it's defined anywhere, but a browser could choose to save
convenient. The only purpose of
those names was to describe what they represent.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
. me) like being able to omit tags.
I hope you mean't we shouldn't rather than we should.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
it to handle stuff like video
or gauge?
That covers frame content, and no-frame content. Is there any other
place where you might want to use these features? If so, please,
elaborate (describe which features you'd need, where you'd need to be
able to use them, and why).
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
[1] http://www.google.com/search?q=HTML+resizable+table
PS: BTW, my name is Eduard, not Edouard. I'd appreciate if you could
avoid mistyping it. Thanks.
valid as the newest (despite
its age) standard for frameset master pages.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
forward (at
least, it addresses all the ones HTML4 Frameset + HTML4 inside frames
could address).
What is being asked for? What do you (and/or Peter) want to be changed
on the spec, and why? If nobody answers this, there is very little
hope this discussion will go anywhere.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
the use-cases for frameset, and some
that frameset just can't, it's obvious which one to drop.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
as much as you want; and
trigger either quirks or standard mode on the client side. In
addition, if you manage properly your files and doctypes, you can even
have everything validating. What are you exactly asking for?
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
[1]:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library
solution. State clearly how/why it meets each of the
requirements. Also, try to describe the specific changes required on
the spec.
If you manage to do that, your proposal will be definitely be taken
much more seriously.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
is not an option; but that shouldn't be done at the expense of
good content and careful authors.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
by Microsoft, bring some factual data about it. Otherwise,
including fakepath is equivalent to stupidifying the language
(probably at the expense of breaking currently good sites), based
only on a single vendor stating its unwillingness to implement the
non-stupid alternative.
Regards,
Eduard
(including all the decently-designed ones) that
need/use the filename would break. What would be the point to keep
compatibility with some bad-sites if it would break many good sites?
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Smylerssmyl...@stripey.com wrote:
If one major browser implements non-standard behaviour for compatibility
with existing content, it would have an advantage with users over other
browsers -- those other browsers would likely want to implement it, to
avoid losing
say is generally productive but,
IMO, discussion about what it's supposed to mean is
counter-productive: the efforts put by all participants into this
debate would be more useful on other aspects of the language.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
If it would (and a lot of people here seem to be arguing that it would),
then this discussion could be easily be put to an end by tweaking the
wording in a way that makes this more clearer
implementations and
implementation feedback, but it also provides significant advantages
that, IMO, far outweigth the drawbacks.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
[1] http://crdf.dragon-tech.org/crdf.pdf
[2] (multiple links: the threads got split by some reason, and the
archives also break threads at months' boundaries
script / with XHTML5, or use
script/script in (non-X) HTML.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
. However, there is no
chance to change how browsers handle script. Not with so many
millions of pages relying on that behavior. And you can still use
XHTML5 if you want the / to mean something.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
on the specification has a lot more strength than any lint
tool. While it may be ok to leave more arguable aspects to these
tools, things that are obviously wrong should be clearly defined as
non-conformant by the spec.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
concept of singular properties with CSS3 Selectors. The
document now suggest an extension (just a pseudo-class named
:singular) to handle this. This is a very new addition and feedback
on it would be highly valuable.
[1] http://crdf.dragon-tech.org/crdf.pdf
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Keryx Webwebmas...@keryx.se wrote:
On 2009-07-23 20:32, Eduard Pascual wrote:
While I don't consider a hard requirement would be appropriate, there
is an audience sector this discussion seems to be ignoring: Authoring
Tools' developers. IMO, it would be highly
method would be best for HTML;
but I'm still convinced that having a single gatekeeper with absolute
power over the next web standard is, at least, insane.
/The point
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
in, the
benefit of built-in properties would be minimal compared to using a
reasonably short prefix (such as owl:).
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
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
attribute values.
On the manual authoring side, I'd like to insist on the idea of
highlighting the safety of always quoting attributes versus the risk
of mistaking a required quotation as optional.
Finally, I think we might come up with some wording that worked for both cases.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
are using, and you will be
able to squeeze the most from each browser you whish to support, and
automate the validation as intended in the original use case.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
for evolving
HTML. And we need to evolve HTML, becuase the current standard is over
a decade old, and is falling short to the web's needs every now and
then.
Just my PoV anyway.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
It's clear that, despite the spec would currently encourage this
example's markup, it is not a good choice. IMHO, either of these should
be used instead:
pYour 100
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
I think this is a level of indirection too far -- when something is a
heading, it should _be_ a heading, it shouldn't be labeled opaquely
with a transformation sheet elsewhere
for their browser (it would
make sense, for example, if Chromium had a lower default limit than
FF, since C's workers are more expensive).
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
CCREL (quite suboptimal, and wouldn't validate on HTML5, but
would still work), but I can't do so using Microdata (which is also
suboptimal, would validate on HTML5, but doesn't work anywhere yet).
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
missconceptions (for example, CRDF doesn't
require, nor even encourages, taking all the semantics out of the main
document: semantics should be kept as close as possible to the content
as long as this doesn't force redundance/repetition).
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On 5/22/09, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
For manually authored pages and feeds things would be different; but
are there really a significant ammount of such cases out there? I
can't say I have seen the entire web (who can?), but among what I have
seen, I have never
and feeds things would be different; but
are there really a significant ammount of such cases out there? I
can't say I have seen the entire web (who can?), but among what I have
seen, I have never encountered any hand authored feed, except for code
examples and similar experimental stuff.
Regards,
Eduard
Interesting.
Despite my PoV against the microdata proposal, I've taken a look at it
and find a minor typo:
Within 5.4.1 vCard, by the end of the n property description, the
spec reads:
The value of the fn property a name in one of the following forms:
shouldn't it read:
The value of the fn
Note: I wrote this yesterday. My internet connection wasn't working as
desirable, but GMail told me it had been sent and I believed it. Now I
have just noticed that it hadn't; and at least one person has been
confused by the changes in the document. Sorry for this issue, and
hope this time GMail
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 23:52, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Philip Taylor excors+wha...@gmail.com
wrote:
It doesn't matter one syntax or another. But if a syntax already
exists (RDFa), building a new
of the next version of the
document.
Until I add the fixes to the document, it's only left to reiterate my
thanks for your feedback.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
relatively easy. OTOH, adding the semantic code
as part of the CSS styling, or trying to consider this as part (or
even as an extension) of the CSS language is wrong by definition:
semantics is not styling; and we should try to make authors aware
enough of the difference.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Smylers smyl...@stripey.com wrote:
Nils Dagsson Moskopp writes:
Am Freitag, den 08.05.2009, 19:57 + schrieb Ian Hickson:
* Tara runs a video sharing web site for people who want
licensing information to be included with their videos. When
is not an
exception.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
the costs and possible issues?
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
criticism to the proposal
is always welcome.
(Note: if discussion about this proposal should take place somewhere
else, please let me know.)
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
in. I'm eager to change my mind of there is base for it.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
Let me start with some apologies:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Seeing that solutions are already being discussed
here, I'm trying to put the ideas into a human-readable document that
I plan to submit to this list either late today or early
or early tomorrow for
your review and consideration.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
[1] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-April/019487.html
with this post is to bring the
problem/need into consideration, that thread evolved into discussing
some solution ideas. I think we should have the list of needs and
use-cases properly defined before we start discussing solutions.)
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the
WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add
for better accuracy.
Greetings,
Eduard Pascual
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Eduard Pascual wrote:
[...]
I don't really follow.
Neither do I, and I wrote that :S
Re-reading the conversation, I'm not really sure if I really
understood Joao's issue and proposal correctly
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I seem to have a few problems here, but nothing I cannot handle. For some
reason I get my e-mails later than I should and they are working on the
electricity grid here, so I have no power during the day (only at night).
for a comparison.
Actually, after reviewing in more dept these pre-histroric specs, I
now see the paralelism between presentation and semantics even more
obvious.
Greetings,
Eduard Pascual
I can't say for sure if this is an issue from the spec document
itself, or just a rendering bug on my browser (FF 3.0.3), but here it
goes:
Within the section 4.3.1 The script element, on the algorythm
labeled Running a script, step 6, the text for the first condition
shows overlapped, each line
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Eduard Pascual wrote:
Can somebody put forward any technical argument against this idea?
For my benefit, could you succintly summarise the changes that this would
involve to the spec? I'm not sure I
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Philipp Serafin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Leons Petrazickis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It matters in the sense that web browsers would have to implement both
approaches for backwards compatibility.
This depends what you mean when
; and if someone disagrees I'm more than willing to pay attention
to your arguments. Also, I think it'd be good to start branching stuff
from here rather than keeping the multi-discussion on this thread.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Samuel Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Samuel Santos wrote:
I find it very hard to convince some clients that in order to have the
browse button in their language
LOL forgot to add the whatwg list to the To: field ^^;
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eduard Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Review of the 3.16 section and the
HTMLInputElement interface
To: Samuel Santos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu
, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Eduard Pascual wrote:
[...]
What's the difference then between mark and span then? I mean, does
the mark element provide anything that span with an appropriate
class wouldn't?
A default style when there's no CSS support
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope I am doing this right, I am not used to mailing lists ;-)
Anyway, following some discussions on the web regarding footnotes/side notes
I have found that there is a need for some form of element to mark these up.
The
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Pentasis wrote:
[...]
As the mark element has different usages defined on it already why not
include a type attribute (or similar) that defines what it is used
for. One of these types would then be
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Markus Ernst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider a form with some quite big radio button groups, and now you have do
add some more options. After you are done, your boss says: Ok, great
work... but this looks too ugly now, just change it into those dropdown kind
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be useful if it was
possible to allow audio to be used such that a single file can be
downloaded that contains multiple sound effects, and then use javascript to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Declare INPUT[type=mailing-list] instead of INPUT[type=emails],
please. Type=emails is ugly and confusing (as it seems to expect
messages).
...
emails is
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole idea was to make a single HTTP request to the server. Doesn't seem
like your proposal accomplishes that.
Indeed, it doesn't. It doesn't seem that the recent messages mentioned
that need neither.
Anyway, for the
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Sean Hogan wrote:
I might be missing something obvious, but...
When are ValidityState properties updated? And when are CSS pseudo-classes
(:valid, :invalid, :in-range, :out-of-range) updated?
This are just my thoughts, however I feel they are worth sharing:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can call setCustomValidity() to set a specific string.
Joao explicitly asked for a way to achieve this **without scripting
enabled**. I think it's quite
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Aaron Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are three costs to SSL:
1. Purchasing a signed cert.
2. Configuring the web server.
3. The CPU time necessary to do the encryption.
1 could be fixed by less paranoid UAs, 2 could be fixed with better
software and
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sending any data, including, log-in data, through an unencrypted connection
is greeted by a warning dialogue box in Internet Explorer.
Only the first time. IIRC, the don't display this again checkbox is
checked by
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:28 AM, WeBMartians [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
I can't speak for others, but just for myself: the way I understand
the
.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
; and this applies
whether the semantics information is stored (ie: embeeded in document
vs external referenced resource).
In summary, I think RDFa might work, and it wouldn't be a too bad
solution, but I don't think it is the best approach either.
Regards,
Eduard Pascual
Software and Web developer.
93 matches
Mail list logo
