[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML?
I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked
closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I
don't think it can be parsed as SGML though.
Because SGML has never been
Now I am even more confused!
I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
That XML was valid SGML
So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new
language being in-compatible with SGML?
Regards,
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I am even more confused!
I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
That XML was valid SGML
So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new
language being in-compatible
http://immike.net/blog/2008/02/06/xhtml-2-vs-html-5/
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I am even more confused!
I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two
serialisations.
A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation
and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5).
Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML?
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is
essentially two different languages?
HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some
definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it.
I thought that it was supposed to unify
From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence,
David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to
build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in
it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being
phased
Sorry, forgot to add, that the purpose of XHTML, from what some of the top
designers and working group members have stated, I may have misinterpreted,
but XHTML was built to help designers/developers transition from HTML to
XML.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID of an
element such as an image? You can target the name, but not the ID, not
without document.getElementById-blah blah blah, so how can it duplicate
it? It seems then, that is does not.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:32 PM,
Brett Patterson wrote:
From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me.
It depends on how you define language.
Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to
know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL
and HTTP in it.,
Brett Patterson wrote:
So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID
of an element such as an image?
You can.
You can target the name, but not the ID,
Incorrect.
not without document.getElementById
Why would you want to do it without document.getElementById?
Even
My tolerance for legend attribute is running extremely thin and the
irritation I have for it is greater than IE6.
Two questions:
1) Can anyone absolutely positively confirm that without legend a site
will cause suffering to screen reader's user or cause a traumatic
effect to accessibility?
2008/11/27 tee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit
longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text
still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off
when the words reaches 160px threshold. I
2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit
longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text
still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off
when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a br /,
On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:
2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a
bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox,
the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text
simply get cut off when the words
try white-space:normal...?
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:
2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit
longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text
still
Hi,
Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is
legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know
about this.
IceKat.
***
List Guidelines:
Hi
If there is CSS related issue that doesn't seem to want play nice, no matter
what you do, it's probably a rule being set by the browser in its user agent
stylesheet.
In firefox's case, it's in firefox install dir/res/forms.css (for forms).
Have
a peek at that stylesheet and you'll see all
1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!2) If he does anything like that,
he will be dead!!!
--and--
3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can
promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly
Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over
news, whirlpool, everywhere.
Brett Patterson wrote:
1)
That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
--and--
3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and
this I
Where could I find a good information site about the document.images.imageId
script line, please? And if you are trying to code using codes such as
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217502
Just an example. A quick search to find.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere.
Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there.
--
Blake Haswell
http://www.blakehaswell.com/ |
Brett Patterson wrote:
1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
--and--
3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I
can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
4) Like I said, I think this a
Haha, it's not spam, unfortunately the only entity that fits your rather
heated descriptive words on this topic is the Government of Australia,
who are pushing for this filter.
This *is* already happening in Australia and the Government have
seriously said they would like it in place. I know,
Hi Brett,
Where have you been, this is a very important very current issue facing
anyone involved in web based industries.
ciao
L
Brett Patterson wrote:
1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
--and--
3) Anyone who believes in those
Yes, real, definitely. But think about it, the government would already,
and in some part already do filter information. If they went to the
extremes outlined though, don't you think that generally the public (not
just the web development community) would put up such a stink about it,
the
(Hoping this thread isn't off topic)
Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia
was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for
Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say.
But aren't there some serious practical barriers to this? Would ISP's
seriously get
This is currently at the stage of the government looking for
expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial.
I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of
sh*t that everyone says it is.
The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and
As I understand it, tests have already been
completed in TAS? I'm not sure how accurate this is, though... as I
have not seen any results.
Andrew Barnett wrote:
This is currently at the stage of the government looking for
expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial.
I
Nedlud,
My understanding is that as long as the majority of elected members of
parliament support this proposition, it will be able to pass through,
even though it is technically unfeasible.
The Liberals and the Greens are very opposed to this legislation, and
it cannot be passed in the Senate
]
*
**
__ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3644 (20081126) __
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Brett Patterson wrote:
1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
--and--
3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I
can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
4) Like I said, I think this
32 matches
Mail list logo
