| 01:28 | <jdandrea> | Reality check Q - From Web Forms 2.0 section 2.3: "The size attribute of the input element is deprecated in favor of using CSS to specify the layout of the form." Thus, we should no longer expect to specify a text or password field width in (integer) number of characters, correct? |
| 01:30 | <Dashiva> | Since very few inputs use monospaced fonts, you didn't really have that option ever |
| 01:32 | <jdandrea> | Granted. |
| 01:32 | <jdandrea> | Still, I'm just asking. ;) |
| 01:32 | <Dashiva> | I suppose that's still legal :) |
| 01:32 | <jdandrea> | k |
| 02:25 | jdandrea | cheers - the Google Search Appliance multifunction stylesheet now outputs (currently) conformant HTML5. |
| 08:14 | <mpt> | Dashiva, I thought about comparing XHTML2 to Ido or Interlingua, but Esperanto is really quite close |
| 08:15 | <mpt> | Well-known but hardly-used, impractically different from English, but (with the retention of <h1>, <img>, etc) still not as "pure" as it could be (which is why Ido exists) |
| 08:23 | <mpt> | The "L" in "HTML" has sociolinguistic effects, just as the "H" has game-theory effects |
| 12:01 | met_ | is not sure if http://blog.whatwg.org/feed-autodiscovery#comment-4244 is spam or not |
| 12:05 | <Philip`> | Looks like #3564 is, since it's repeating someone else's message |
| 12:05 | Philip` | can't tell with 4244 |
| 12:49 | <Dashiva> | Any URL with "shop" in it is suspect if you ask me |
| 12:52 | <gsnedders> | how many implementations actually accept @rel=feed already? |
| 12:54 | <Philip`> | Could just get rid of URLs entirely in the blog - I've never been sure what they're useful for, except as advertisements for people's own sites |
| 12:55 | <Philip`> | (since if you want to find out more information about a commenter, you can just put their name into a search engine) |
| 13:40 | <Lachy> | I deleted the comment as spam. I've decided that if there's even a hint that it's spam, it probably is |
| 14:11 | <annevk> | http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/05/wasting-resources#comments :) |
| 14:12 | <zcorpan_> | yeah, saw that |
| 14:15 | <zcorpan_> | http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html/browse_thread/thread/1fc66d394118dddf/2b4ee55d7e6e635d?lnk=st&rnum=1&hl=en#2b4ee55d7e6e635d |
| 14:16 | <annevk> | How is <span class="italic"> better than <i> |
| 14:17 | <annevk> | <shipname> _may_ be better than <i> but nobody will use it |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | To keep HTML easy to use we need something like <i>. Otherwise people will use <span class="italic"> which doesn't help processing tools or bandwidth usage |
| 14:34 | <annevk> | "Unless other specified, if a DOM attribute that is a signed numberic type is assigned a negative value, a NOT_SUPPORTED_ERR exception must be raised." Shouldn't that be "unsigned numeric" and maybe INDEX_SIZE_ERR ... |
| 14:37 | Philip` | thinks it should be "Unless otherwise specified" too |
| 14:39 | <Philip`> | With "Infinity or Not-a-Number", is it necessary to mention negative Infinity too? (or maybe say "non-finite" to cover all those cases) |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | negative infinity is important for the signed cases I suppose |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | Hopefully at some point someone gets around to writing the spec for ES <> DOM: http://esw.w3.org/topic/ESBindingIssues |
| 14:45 | <Philip`> | I guess it also matters when you use Infinity or NaN or 1e10 where the IDL wants an int, since as far as JS is concerned it's all just numbers |
| 14:49 | <Philip`> | There's also ImageData with "a data attribute whose value is an integer array", where I have no idea what should happen with e.g. [null, "1", 2.5, 3e9] |
| 14:50 | <annevk> | the spec defines that |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | 3e9 > 255 -> WRONG_TYPE_ERR (or something) |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | I guess null becomes 0 and "1" becomes 1 and 2.5 becomes 3... |
| 14:52 | <annevk> | or maybe 2 |
| 14:57 | <Philip`> | Would Math.pow(2,32)+128 get converted to an int before going through the 0<=x<=255 test? |
| 14:57 | <Philip`> | (At least Firefox and IE convert that value into 128 when they have to treat it as an int) |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | try it with [test()] |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | I think it would work... |
| 14:59 | <jdandrea> | Clarification Q: In HTML4, alt is optional for for the input element. In HTML 5, is it non-conforming for type="text"? (I see alt in Appendix A of Web Forms 2.0 but can't get it to pass in the conformance checker.) |
| 14:59 | <jdandrea> | s/for for/for |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | jdandrea, yes |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | jdandrea, although are you sure about HTML4? |
| 15:00 | <jdandrea> | annevk: At first I was under the impression that alt was _not_ allowed for text fields in HTML4 ... |
| 15:00 | <jdandrea> | annevk: Perhaps I'm misreading this though - http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt |
| 15:00 | <jdandrea> | "The alt attribute must be specified for the IMG and AREA elements. It is optional for the INPUT and APPLET elements." |
| 15:00 | <annevk> | alt= is only valid for input type=image |
| 15:01 | <annevk> | in HTML5 |
| 15:01 | <jdandrea> | ok |
| 15:01 | <annevk> | and I think it's even required in that case |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=189245 (people asking questions about features in HTML5) |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | (this one is about <meta name=dns> :) ) |
| 15:09 | <annevk> | The problem people seem to have is the terminology |
| 15:12 | <annevk> | "host name" isn't exactly widely known |