Ian Hickson wrote:
Another criteria is "could the presentation be changed without losing its
meaning?". For example, with clearly you can change the presentation
without losing the fact that it is emphasis: whether it is bigger or
italics doesn't make much difference. But with I don't think yo
*Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*:
Mlle
x2
I'm not sure how to deal with the chemistry case. We don't really have an
element for anything like chemical formulas.
Stretching its semantics really far, one could use 'code' for formulas¹
and 'abbr' for isotopes etc.
¹ The molecular sequencers ("r
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, dolphinling wrote:
>
> "green" is just as meaningful as "subscript"--they're both purely
> presentational, and we as people have attached meanings to certain
> presentations. The semantics of "subscript" are completely different
> from the semantics of "there are two of the
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, James Graham wrote:
> Because that happens to be a convenient umbrella for specific
> constructions in documents that need to be treated in a particular way
> by UAs. Indeed I would be more than happy if Web Apps "clarified" the
> situation with and so that purely presenta
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
>
> I cannot agree. We should not mix typographical presentation for
> presentation sake and typographical presentation for semantic reason.
> While it may be not a big deal in chemistry, it is not so in math.
This may be a good way of putting it in
(I hope y'all don't mind me replying to all your e-mails out of order. I'm
basically going down the spec one element at a time and when I come across
one that someone has discussed in the past, I reply to those e-mails.)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Matthew Thomas wrote:
> On 7 Jan, 2005, at 5:58 AM, Ia
Ian Hickson wrote:
Anyway, I've removed the "open issue" in the status section about whether
the repetition model should be kept. As you pointed out, the views in
favour of keeping it are stronger than the views suggesting it be removed.
The other issue - about the form content model - has been s
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, several people have said that. We're thinking about removing it.
> > On the other hand, several people have said that it is a godsend and
> > that they are so happy it is there because they are fed up of rolling
> > their own. At the moment
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Csaba Gabor wrote:
2. Repetition model.
The Draft has a huge amount of space devoted to this,
but I haven't been able to think of a single compelling
argument for it. Most of the control enhancements such
as validation are conveniences, after all, but what
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Csaba Gabor wrote:
> >
> > [simulating img clicks]
> > What was your use case for wanting the event handler to trigger?
>
> 1. I had asked for the ability to simulate a REAL click complete with
> simulated coordinates.
Ah! You can do that by simply creating an event using th
a simulated
basis? How would one formalize it in a reasonable way.
7. Finally, a curiosity question. SELECT elements are lacking
in this spec. Now, back in the summer it was pointed out to me
(Ian) that Hierachical menus will be available in Web Apps 1.0
What I don't understand is why they are
11 matches
Mail list logo
