Re: [WICD] comments

Hi Bert,

Some notes below. (Not on behalf of the WG.)


On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:31:43 +0100, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
> 3) 3.2.1 Scalable Foreground Child Elements
>
> XHTML also has an IMG element. Is it expected that IMG elements work the
> same as OBJECT elements (apart from parameter attributes, obviously)?
> Or is that undefined?

I believe the WG decided to only do this for <object>. With regard to  
sizing I guess it should work the same for <img>, but not with regard to  
interaction. In that aspect <img> is more like 'background-image',  
'content' and the like.


> 7) Ditto
>
> CSS3 will have properties to allow background images to scale to the
> size of an element (or to any other size). Which is, I believe,
> compatible with the idea in this draft that the intrinsic size of a
> "scalable background image" without an explicit size is magically the
> same as the size of the element. (Apart from issue 6 above, of course.)
>
> But it seems that the definition of the intrinsic size belongs in CSS,
> not in WICD, because that's also where the size of scalable
> *foreground* images is defined.

That would be the best I guess, if CSS doesn't do that already.


> 2) 3.1 Identification
>
> A type like "text/xhtml+xml; profile=WICD" would be easier to
> understand, easier to remember, shorter, would not look like a URL and
> would not need quote marks. A parameter like that would also be
> case-insensitive, like the rest of the MIME type.

Per RFC 3236 section 8 "profile" is supposed to match the semantics of the  
identically named attribute on the <head> element.


> Also, WICD is a text/* type, not application/*. The most useful fallback
> for a UA is to show it, not to save it to disk. That's why it has a
> charset parameter.

See RFC 3236 again.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Saturday, 28 January 2006 21:45:46 UTC