[whatwg] WF2 part 1-3

[Håkon Wium Lie]

Also sprach fantasai:

 > >  > This type is used most frequently for dates in European industry.
 > > 
 > > editorial: "European industry" -> "Europe". 
 > 
 > Don't most people in Europe use the month+day system? I've never
 > heard anyone say, "I'm going home in week 35," but plenty of people
 > say, "I'm going home in August."

In spoken language, months are much more common. However, when you
sign up for holidays, or schedule a delivery or something (both are
typical form use cases), week numbers are typically used. Also, week
numbers are often more accurate. Instead of saying "i'll be on holiday
the first week of august", it's more accurate to say "I'll be on
holiday in week 32".

My point was that this is not only used in "industry".

 > > How do you envision the suggestion to appear? Semantic relationships
 > > are useful for many purposes, but the poor programmer left to
 > > implement the specification needs a few suggestions. 
 > 
 > Using Hixie's proposed combinator:
 > 
 >    output[for]:hover /for/ *,
 >    output[for]:focus /for/ * {
 >      outline: invert dashed;
 >    }
 > 
 > CSS Selectors v. 3.5? :)

And until then we hardcode a solution? I'd drop the "for" attribute in
the first round.

 > >  > UA implementors should divine appropriate behaviour by reverse
 > >  > engineering existing products and attempting to emulate their
 > >  > behaviour.
 > > 
 > > Strike divine. Remember, browsers are monolithic dinosaurs with whom
 > > no divine being would ever associate. 
 > 
 > It's being used as a verb, meaning it takes this definition:
 > 
 > v. tr.
 >     1. To foretell through or as if through the art of divination.
 >     2.
 >           1. To know by inspiration, intuition, or reflection.
 >           2. To guess.
 >     3. To locate (underground water or minerals) with a divining rod; douse.

Ah, no divine guidance available, back to reverse-engineering... :)

 > >  > Note: To prevent an attribute from being processed in this way, put
 > >  > a non-breaking zero-width space character () at the start
 > >  > of the attribute. When the template is cloned, that character will
 > >  > be removed, but any other text in the attribute will be left alone.
 > >  > This could be useful if you have no control over the rest of the
 > >  > contents in the attribute, e.g. if it is user configurable text.
 > > 
 > > Why do we need this (arguably ugly hack) when the page author is free
 > > to select a value for the ID attribute? Surely, it must be possible to
 > > find a unique name? And, if curly brackets appear around a undefined
 > > name no processing will occur, right?
 > 
 > They're square brackets, actually.

Sorry, yes, I meant square brackets. Making them curly may, as you
say, be a good idea. However, I still don't see the need for 
though.

 > >    <tr index="1">
 > >    <tr id="order" repeat="3">
 > > 
 > > The "repeat" attribute indicates that the element is a template. In
 > > HTML, the syntax can further be shortened:
 > > 
 > >    <tr id="order" repeat>
 > 
 > That won't work. The shortened syntax in HTML means that
 > 'repeat' is the *value* of some attribute, not the name
 > of some attribute. E.g.
 > 
 >    <table border>
 > 
 > is equivalent to
 > 
 >    <table frame="border">
 > 
 > not
 > 
 >    <table border="">

This works in my browser:

  <table border>
  <tr><td>foo
  </table>

  <table border=5>
  <tr><td>foo
  </table>

Even if we have to make up a dummy attribute to allow the short form
to pass through SGML validators, I think it's worth it.

 > >  > Prefilled rows can contain any content; it need not match the
 > >  > template. In order to be considered a part of the repetition model,
 > >  > however, the row must have a repeat attribute with a numeric value.
 > >  > That value can be any integer. (For example, you could use "-1" as
 > >  > the value of all prefilled rows.)
 > > 
 > > I don't understand why it must not be a valid index.
 > 
 > I don't understand what you're pointing out here.

According to the text, -1 is an acceptable value for the "repeat"
attribute. I don't understand why it must not be an index (which, I
presume, can only be 0 ... n).

 > > The repeat model is complex. Could we make is slightly simple by
 > > "dropping the repeat-template attribute?
 > 
 > The repeat model, according to Mark Schenk, is not flexible enough
 > as it is. He's got a great use case, I'll let him explain. :)

I'll just sit back and wait :)

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome