Re: [WSG] Followup to Tuesday's Brisbane Meeting

On 17/06/2005, at 10:01 PM, Lea de Groot wrote: August will see us avidly listening to John Bates talking to us about Internationalisation (geez, no wonder it is routinely abbreviated to 'i18n'!). I've been told it's shortened for two reasons: Firstly, it's much easier to type. Secondly,

Re: [WSG] more on flashish stuff: SVG

harnessed the power yet (which is understandable since it's tough to make money in that area so they concentrate on the most popular format, HTML). I'll end the advertisement here. Dean -- dean jackson world wide web consortium (w3c) - http://www.w3.org/ graphics - interaction svg specification

Re: [WSG] Asterisks in W3C spec

On 15 Mar 2005, at 18:10, Sigurd Magnusson wrote: I keep seeing asterisks in the W3C spec but cannot see a glossary anywhere. As an example, with the img element in xhtml 1.1, the attributes 'src' and 'alt' are both marked with an asterisk. Why? http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/

Re: [WSG] WSG thoghts on XUL

John, On 22 Feb 2005, at 15:42, John Allsopp wrote: I don't think it's beyond the scope of the W3C. We're constantly looking at technologies like XUL. Do people see the need for standardisation in this area? Sure. I think the real benefit of standardisation and standards bodies is not

Re: [WSG] WSG thoghts on XUL

On 22 Feb 2005, at 21:07, Patrick Lauke wrote: Dean Jackson [snip] I don't think it's beyond the scope of the W3C. We're constantly looking at technologies like XUL. Do people see the need for standardisation in this area? I'd welcome some standardisation, but as John Allsopp already mentioned

Re: [WSG] Centre DIV Vertically? Any compliant methods?

On 23 Feb 2005, at 09:49, John Allsopp wrote: John, What I want is the ability to align the content of a DIV, for instance, or any block element, vertically, and I'm asking why it wasn't included in CSS-1. I can't think of any policy-type reason why it wasn't, that's all, and I don't see

Re: [WSG] WSG thoghts on XUL

), so I think I'll leave it at that now... I don't think it's beyond the scope of the W3C. We're constantly looking at technologies like XUL. Do people see the need for standardisation in this area? Dean -- dean jackson world wide web consortium (w3c) - http://www.w3.org/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [WSG] CSS3.0

I realise that many people have already responded. Sorry for the echo. I'm not in the CSS working group, but I do work for W3C. On 17 Feb 2005, at 10:31, David R wrote: Just out of curiosity... Is the CSS3.0 Spec finalised, or are they still accepting suggestions and comments? I'm not sure there

Re: [WSG] w3c badges

On 18 Oct 2004, at 12:50, Rick Faaberg wrote: Hi all, Who can I send a suggestion to at W3C that they make their web badges a lot more subtle (and smaller) so that I would actually use them on my sites? I work for the W3C and I've heard your suggestion. While I'm not the badges guy, I know they

Re: [WSG] w3c badges

On 18 Oct 2004, at 13:37, Ryan Christie wrote: You're free to make your own W3C badges to place on your site. Most people I see, incl. myself, just use text links in the footer. W3C won't hunt you down for infringement or anything. There are definitely some copyright issues in using the logo

Re: [WSG] should you refuse to support IE?

On 18 Oct 2004, at 21:10, Mark Harwood wrote: Not commercialy, but personaly on your own blog sites are other little community sites? I've just redesigned my blog (www.phunky.co.uk) and in doing so i decided i was not going to touch some of the minor issuse that IE has with my site, although

Re: [WSG] Is XHTML harmful?

On 7 Oct 2004, at 02:09, Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Hi Kim, Ian Hickson is _not_ saying XHTML is harmful, he is saying that serving up XHTML with the wrong MIME type is bad. That's right. It's probably not the best title for the document, but my feeling is that people using the ...