On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:18:16 -0600, Doron Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the code in Mozilla is well tested and already used in the wild.
Could you point me at the tests?
URL:
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/extensions/webservices/docs/Soap_Scripts_in_Mozilla.html
says
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:32:28 +, Dean Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the repetition model but maybe it needs more work. But not much
more. I feel we are very close to a simple yet useful mechanism. If we
did separate it into a separate module then we would have time to tweak
it...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:03:44 + (UTC), Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Instead of a password, the bank issues you with a hardware device that
computes a one-time password that changes every minute.
Which changes the security to a physical
On Apr 6, 2005 11:22 AM, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I
disagree with that statement anyway. Validators should not be
non-conformant simply because they only do their job to validate a
document and nothing else.
Absolutely, if there is a continued use of a doctype, then a
On Apr 6, 2005 11:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
and the mostly undefined error handling, what about HTML 5 will
be so incompatible with SGML to warrant such a decision?
One example:
On Apr 6, 2005 3:41 PM, Olav Junker Kjær [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There are three types of conformance criteria:
(1) Criteria that can be expressed in a DTD
(2) Criteria that cannot be expressed by a DTD, but can still be checked
by a machine.
(3) Criteria that can only
On Apr 6, 2005 10:05 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 15:10, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
XHTML variants of HTML 5 must be a conformant XML document instead,
though I noticed that is not the case with square brackets in ID
attributes in section 3.7.2 of WF2
That's not
On Apr 7, 2005 11:51 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Entities. Or is that problem going to be solved by: use UTF-8? (Which
would be something I wouldn't disagree with, although for mathematical
symbols it might be a pain to enter
On Apr 7, 2005 12:03 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They trigger standards mode in modern browsers. The
current one for WHATWG specs is:
Will the spec explain this some more, in particular could you document
what standards mode is, and exactly how user agents should use this
doctype
Or at the very least use something that would not confuse people into
thinking that it is an
application of SGML or XML.
Do you want to replace NONSGML with THIS-IS-NOT-SGML?
No, I want to replace !DOCTYPE - with something completely different,
the whole point that anything that looks
On Apr 7, 2005 6:59 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I don't think SGML validation is part of What WG conformance
requirements. I thought Hixie has specifically said he doesn't bother
with DTDs.
Hixie is simply the editor of the spec,
On Apr 7, 2005 8:30 PM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 21:49, Jim Ley wrote:
this thread has shown clearly that many people contributing to the
WHAT-WG work do use DTD's
To me it seemed that you argued that DTD validation is more useful than
other conformance
On Apr 7, 2005 9:22 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
From which you can clearly conclude I do use DTD validation as part of
my QA process. All the people who have said that DTD validation is
absolutely useless haven't bothered to describe
On Apr 8, 2005 8:18 AM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. The proposed doctype !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//WHATWG//NONSGML
HTML5//EN activates the standards mode in IE6.
The proposed string that MUST appear as the first line of a WHAT-WG
document is... please do not call it a doctype
On 4/20/05, Dean Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of setTimeout, where is this defined?
Nowhere, and in fact the string method is the commoner implementation,
there are a number of implementations which do not support a function
reference.
uniqueID is very useful, I to use it all the
On 4/21/05, Dean Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Speaking of setTimeout, where is this defined?
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#settimeout
OK. That's twice in one day. I'm off to read the WA1 spec
It's rather odd though, as it's been defined
On 4/22/05, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 22, 2005, at 18:00, Jim Ley wrote:
so should be in a rendering language like CSS?
If you value hard-line anti-presentationalism over pragmatism.
Er, There are very good reasons why the presentation is split, the
most important
On 4/22/05, Olav Junker Kjær [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Neuberg wrote:
Whenever I implement a DHTML (Ajax?) type app that needs to talk to the
server without refreshing the client, such as through a hidden iframe or
an XmlHttpRequest object, I always wish that I could update the window
On 4/24/05, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 23, 2005, at 22:16, dolphinling wrote:
There's one implementation, and one implementation in testing builds.
It would also be an easy change to make for those implementations (and
they could still keep support for the old way if
On 4/25/05, Brad Neuberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If successful shipped implementations is what
matters, then there's
lots of successful IE extensions that do the same as
canvas and other
elements which it would be much more sensible to go
with.
I'm not against that; I thought one
On 4/29/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
Please do not re-invent the wheel, but standardise this (or a subset)
functionality.
The supposed motivation of WHAT-WG is compatibility with IE6, VML and
DirectAnimation provide 2D and 3D drawing contexts
On 5/4/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
Plug-ins are by their very nature optional. Why would we want to
move functionality into object elements, which are by definition
external objects like plug-ins?
OBJECT is not by definition a plug-in, and Opera/Mozilla
On 5/8/05, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Ben Meadowcroft wrote:
There are two types of help that I think are appropriate for web
applications, full page help and element sensitive help.
The problem with both is discoverability. Unless we can solve that, there
On 6/21/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Now that I think about it, wouldn't the following be valid also?...
| ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
| !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
| http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;
On 7/3/05, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 at 21:30, Jim Ley wrote:
It's trivial to work around
That is obvious. However, *will* people work around it, or will the
browser that is better at caching documents be at a disadvantage
because web apps
On 7/8/05, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may imply that a client with a cached document
should return a status 200 when the requested document matches one in
the cache (whether or not the UA has checked with the server if the
resource is current).
I wouldn't be
On 7/12/05, Dean Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
On 7/12/05, Dean Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the customisation is just colours and chrome style. We'll attempt
to guess the chrome style and replicate it. What I really mean is that
we are copying the windows controls
On 7/18/05, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you suspend a timer?
(And why would the UA not suspend the timers itself?)
You're saying that when a user print's an HTML5 user agent MUST stop
all setTimeout counters, I don't see that in the spec, nor why it
would be an expectation of
On 7/19/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
You're saying that when a user print's an HTML5 user agent MUST stop
all setTimeout counters, I don't see that in the spec, nor why it
would be an expectation of a scripter.
So wait, we need to add new events because
On 7/19/05, J. Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
Someone will probably suggest CSS background-images as a suitable for
this aswell, yet again ignoring the fact that CSS is _optional_, and
content-images must not be in background images as they simply
On 7/20/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
This is another of the use cases I've used enhanced printing for - I
actually generally used ScriptX http://www.meadroid.com/scriptx/
rather than simply the IE methods, but the events are all that's
needed. Not paying
On 8/5/05, Olav Junker Kjær [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to remove a constraint like maxLength (on input elements)
through script, eg. by setting it to null? By default a field does not
have any maxlength constraint, so it would seem natural that if you set
a constraint through
On 8/29/05, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Aug 2005 at 12:16, Ian Hickson wrote:
contentEditable needs scripting anyway, to offer things like insert em
element here, etc.
Why must contentEditable depend on scripting? What if we make sure
the wording of
On 8/30/05, Maniac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
WYSIWYG editing has to produce tag-soup, it's free of semantics, as
the wysiwyg cannot know the semantics intended by the user, for that
reason the only way is to limit the elements to those with only strong
semantics - links
On 8/30/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're talking about defining behavior for a semantic element. You're
essentially dictating parts of the implementation of |contenteditable|
to user agent vendors.
Not at all, I'm saying the current implementation in IE is appropriate
for
On 9/2/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Why wouldn't you want the content in the element to be inserted by
Javascript when the page loads when you can just include the content in
markup and hide it using CSS?
Not particularly wanting to support the OP's issue - I don't see a
On 9/3/05, Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
Not particularly wanting to support the OP's issue - I don't see a
problem with the change to the content model of a to require content,
it's a good thing. However styling a link to print away is not a good
idea
On 9/5/05, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aankhen wrote:
I suggest #2, which implies consistently treating the first argument
passed to the function as a single class name to match (this means
foo bar would always return no elements,
No, as already demonstrated, #2 does return
On 9/30/05, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/10/05, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
Then the UA might have to terminate any running script(s) (perhaps
after warning the user and giving the user an option to cancel the
39 matches
Mail list logo
