11 items tagged “hixie”
At this point all I could honestly tell you from the point of view of the editor of several of the HTML5 documents being held up is that the W3C have said they’re won’t publish without the objections being resolved, and that the objection is from Adobe. I can’t even tell what I could do to resolve the objection. It seems to be entirely a process-based objection.
— Ian Hickson # 15th February 2010, 7:38 pm
We did some studies and found that the attribute was almost never used, and most of the time, when it was used, it was a typo where someone meant to write rel=“” but wrote rev=“”. To be precise, the most commonly used value was rev=“made”, which is equivalent to rel=“author” and thus was not a convincing use case. The second most common value was rev=“stylesheet”, which is meaningless and obviously meant to be rel=“stylesheet”.
— Ian Hickson # 14th April 2009, 4:34 pm
James Bennett: Why HTML. Finally, somewhere to point people when they ask why I avoid XHTML that’s a bit more up to date than Hixie’s rant from 2002. # 18th June 2008, 12:27 pm
If Web authors actually use this feature, and if IE doesn’t keep losing market share, then eventually this will cause serious problems for IE’s competitors — instead of just having to contend with reverse-engineering IE’s quirks mode and making the specs compatible with IE’s standards mode, the other browser vendors are going to have to reverse engineer every major IE browser version, and end up implementing these same bug modes themselves.
— Ian Hickson # 23rd January 2008, 10:07 am
I’ve actually been using the latest version of JAWS recently, as part of my work on HTML5. From a usability point of view it is possibly the worst software I have ever used. I’m still horrified at how bad the accessibility situation is. All this time I’ve been hearing people worried about whether or not Web pages have longdesc attributes specified or whatnot, when in fact the biggest problems facing blind users are so much more fundamental as to make image-related issues seem almost trivial in comparison.
— Ian Hickson # 4th September 2007, 12:27 pm
The CSS working group is irrelevant. “Someone really needs to do to CSS what the WHATWG has been doing to HTML”. # 6th June 2007, 10:10 am
Pingback and Trackback
Hixie has written a whitepaper comparing Pingback to Trackback, and answering pretty much every question that has been asked about Pingback in the past week.[... 30 words]
The Pingback 1.0 specification is getting some serious attention. Mark Pilgrim and Dave Winer have linked to it. Ben Trott (co-author of Moveable Type and creator of TrackBack, the system that inspired Pingback) has objected to Hixie’s suggestion that Pingback is more transparent than TrackBack, claiming that TrackBack could be made just as transparent by the right blog tools. Ben blogged some further thoughts which lead to the following comment by Phil Ringnalda:[... 278 words]
Hixie has published the specification for Pingback 1.0. In general the specification is an excellent document, but I’m not entirely happy with the following statement:[... 117 words]
Testing Pingback client
This post exists partly to list the blogs I know of that support PingBack, but mostly to help test my new PingBack client implementation.[... 68 words]
I just realised I haven’t linked to the Pingback specification yet, so here it is. The spec has been carefully assembled by Ian Hickson and, although it is still a working draught, should be the first stop for anyone who wishes to create a Pingback implementation.[... 47 words]