On Apr 12, 2007, at 01:45, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 4/11/07, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of
establishing an attribute such as script-private where authors
would be free to stick anything for retrieval by scripts.
What would happen with embed
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
...
Besides the backslash thing, there are a number of URI processing rules
that browsers must follow for web compatibility which are either not
required by or directly contradictory to the URI RFCs. Documenting these
and fixing the relevant RFCs would be a valuable
On 4/11/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We had to settle on one type that was valid for all files, to deal
with the (common) case where the server was not willing to do
introspection to find the correct type. We decided that audio/
promises that there isn't video, whereas video/
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:43:55 +0200, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
...
Besides the backslash thing, there are a number of URI processing
rules that browsers must follow for web compatibility which are
either not required by or
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:24:54 +0200, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It seems to me that at least this thread does not point out bugs in
RFC3986 or RFC3987, but problems in user agents that do not follow these
specs. Or stated otherwise: in reality, URIs in HTML documents are not
On 4/12/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:12 +1000 11/04/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
On 4/11/07, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it be simpler to use video/ogg and audio/ogg as the base
types here? That would already tell you the intended disposition.
Please
On 11-Apr-07, at 9:35 PM, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 4/11/07, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael A. Puls II wrote:
It's a really good way to archive, but IE won't handle it and most
plug-ins don't accept data URIs, so there are problems with that
use-case. (unless browsers can
Michael A. Puls II schrieb:
...
If every browser supports .mht, I still don't think it's the best
format for archiving.
...
What exactly is the problem with .mht (RFC2557)? Are they fixable? How
about trying to gather a group of people interested in fixing it?
Best regards, Julian
On Apr 12, 2007, at 18:33, Julian Reschke wrote:
What exactly is the problem with .mht (RFC2557)? Are they fixable?
Compared to a zip-based solution, .mht expands data (base64) and the
parts of .mht cannot be extracted with ubiquitous zip utilities.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Do any of the existing web archive formats out there store the ETag or
Last-Modified of the resources it is archiving?
See ya
On 4/11/07, Tyler Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I apologize if I've missed this in the specification or mailing
archives, but I have a suggestion
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 05:45:34PM -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
But [video/*] does at least indicate that we have a time-based multimedia
container on our hands, and that it might contain visual
presentation. application/ suffers that it does not say even that,
and it raises the concern that
Hello,
This reminds me of when Lucas Gonze was arguing that MIME types (and Content
Types) were dead.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/48276
See ya
On 4/12/07, Kevin Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/11/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We had to settle
According to:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#negative-tabindex
A negative integer specifies that the element should be removed from
the tab order. If the element does normally take focus, it may still
be focused using other means (e.g. it could be focused by a click).
That
I have a website which discusses typography, web design, and computer
fonts. It recently occurred to me that my use of spans with style
elements was not really the most semantic method of getting across my
meaning, and I would be better using the font element.
My content goes something
That's an interesting one - but the idea of semantics for html is to
use an element of meaning, which the font tag lacks in every case as
it's a visual not a content representation? This is the same failure as
using a span tag for your example, since span has no meaning. The sad
part here is
On Apr 12, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
My content goes something like this:
span style=font-family:HelveticaThis is a sample of Helvetica/
spanbr
span style=font-family:ArialThis is a sample of Arial/span
If the sense of the text absolutely depends on its being displayed in
David Walbert wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
My content goes something like this:
span style=font-family:HelveticaThis is a sample of
Helvetica/spanbr
span style=font-family:ArialThis is a sample of Arial/span
If the sense of the text absolutely depends on its
David Walbert wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
My content goes something like this:
span style=font-family:HelveticaThis is a sample of
Helvetica/spanbr
span style=font-family:ArialThis is a sample of Arial/span
If the sense of the text absolutely depends on its
At 18:12 -0700 12/04/07, Bill Mason wrote:
Using an image would also avoid the issues that would come up if you
were demonstrating a font via markup that a user doesn't happen to
have installed. The browser could wind up defaulting to a
completely different font than what you were attempting
19 matches
Mail list logo
