Conversation
…ude, html:link and html:anch Closes OscarGodson#13 Closes OscarGodson#5
…erence, it's path to the source.
|
@m93a without a target tho how would JavaScript know the target of the element? A common use case: http://www.ajaxf1.com/tutorial/ajax-file-upload-tutorial.html |
README.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would you have a different link just for documents? Why shouldn't the browser handle the displaying of these like it does now? What's considered an "alternative document" and how would you know what is and isn't one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current "link" was made to do that but little by little it became more of "include" than a real link. If you use as a reference to RSS, the browser just shows feed button and doesn't even download the file. But if you use it as a link to css stylesheet, browser downloads the file, includes it to the page and changes its content.
In layman's terms: include changes the document, alter doesn't
Or maybe we can use meta instead of alter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, basically this link just forces a download?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm assuming, yes? If so there's no need for an entirely different element for that. Just have a like download attribute that's already in HTML now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
include = make it a part of this document
|
Now, my pull request should point to |
_includes/HTML6.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OscarGodson:
@m93a without a target tho how would JavaScript know the target of the element?
A common use case:
http://www.ajaxf1.com/tutorial/ajax-file-upload-tutorial.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@OscarGodson
I would make a <button> with onclick and use JavaScript XMLHttpRequest and File API.
A common use case:
http://www.matlus.com/html5-file-upload-with-progress/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you only have to support new browsers, that'd be fine :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Old browsers won't support HTML6 :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oscar HTML6 doesn't have to worry about backwards compatibility because that would be up to the browsers.
|
@OscarGodson would you merge it to the master, please? |
|
I'm still waiting on responses from you in the PR :) I'm not sold on your explanation of link and removing |
|
Oh, that's a reaction to #5. It's about splitting |
_includes/HTML6.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could make this into it's own PR and ask people how they like it, but I don't see any benefit to this over just allowing a/link. In both cases it makes semantic sense. If we had a link element it'd mean link to this page, and this section. You'd also need links like http://someothersite.com/#foo to work anyway so making them totally different links seems confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think if you remove this and make it it's own PR and get feedback I'll accept the PR :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, rollback to html:a done. Adding "for" attribute to it so you can link elements using css selectors. It would be great to have a possibility to link somebody to the third div.rc of google.com/#q=foo.
As OscarGodson said: You could make this into it's own PR and ask people how they like it, but I don't see any benefit to this over just allowing a/link. In both cases it makes semantic sense. If we had a link element it'd mean link to this page, and this section. You'd also need links like http://someothersite.com/#foo to work anyway so making them totally different links seems confusing.
|
@OscarGodson is there anything you don't agree with? :) |
|
"This begins an HTML's head. Equivelent to the current <html> tag." Should read: "This begins an HTML's head. Equivelent to the current <head> tag." |
@risenomore True story :)
4 participants
Update html:meta, split html:link and html:a to html:alter, html:include, html:link and html:anch
Closes #13
Closes #5