<device> element

Name:    
Email:   muellerdotrene2atwebdotde
Product: Firefox Release Candidate
Summary: <device> element

Comments: 
Hello Firefox,

Yesterday I read about the device element in the HTML specification. It
seems the possibilities of such an element wourld improve a browser´s
features sigificantly. Since the device element is not implemented in
any browser yet, is Firefox already planning to implement this?
 
Link to device element:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/commands.html#devices

Regards, 
Rene

Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:2.0b7) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b7
From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/

Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback 
but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to 
see it.
0
hendrix
2/2/2011 2:04:11 PM
mozilla.firefox.prerelease 28687 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

0 Replies
1128 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 8
Get it on Google Play
Get it on Apple App Store

Reply:

Similar Artilces:

superreview granted: [Bug 342035] Expose all display:block elements via nsIAccessibleText : [Attachment 226786] But don't create for <body> or root element such as <html> or <window>, they are redunda
neil@parkwaycc.co.uk <neil@httl.net> has granted Aaron Leventhal <aaronleventhal@moonset.net>'s request for superreview: Bug 342035: Expose all display:block elements via nsIAccessibleText https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342035 Attachment 226786: But don't create for <body> or root element such as <html> or <window>, they are redundant with nsDocAccessible created for doc node https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=226786&action=edit ------- Additional Comments from neil@parkwaycc.co.uk <neil@httl.net> >+ if...

superreview requested: [Bug 342035] Expose all display:block elements via nsIAccessibleText : [Attachment 226786] But don't create for <body> or root element such as <html> or <window>, they are redun #2
Aaron Leventhal <aaronleventhal@moonset.net> has asked Robert O'Callahan (Novell) <roc@ocallahan.org> for superreview: Bug 342035: Expose all display:block elements via nsIAccessibleText https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342035 Attachment 226786: But don't create for <body> or root element such as <html> or <window>, they are redundant with nsDocAccessible created for doc node https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=226786&action=edit ...

superreview requested: [Bug 342035] Expose all display:block elements via nsIAccessibleText : [Attachment 226786] But don't create for <body> or root element such as <html> or <window>, they are redun #3
Aaron Leventhal <aaronleventhal@moonset.net> has asked neil@parkwaycc.co.uk <neil@httl.net> for superreview: Bug 342035: Expose all display:block elements via nsIAccessibleText https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342035 Attachment 226786: But don't create for <body> or root element such as <html> or <window>, they are redundant with nsDocAccessible created for doc node https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=226786&action=edit ...

>>>> Heads up <<<<
I just got a warning from Norton that "PamelaSetup-Basic.exe" has a virus in it. The name is "VirusBurst" Luckily, I did not install this software and Norton's quarantined it so I could delte it, which I have done. Symantec has not completed analysis of this particular piece of garbage but it did catch the sig. If you have installed Pamela, you may be in trouble. Duffy wrote: > I just got a warning from Norton that "PamelaSetup-Basic.exe" has a virus > in it. The name is "VirusBurst" > > Luckily, I did not install...

>>>> ROOT Exploit in SAMBA <<<<<<
"A flaw has been detected in the Samba main smbd code which could allow an external attacker to remotely and anonymously gain Super User (root) privileges on a server running a Samba server. This flaw exists in previous versions of Samba from 2.0.x to 2.2.7a inclusive. This is a serious problem and all sites should either upgrade to Samba 2.2.8 immediately or prohibit access to TCP ports 139 and 445." http://us3.samba.org/samba/samba.html Binaries are available from Samba for RedHat, and some other distributions. So far as I can tell, the RedHat update mirrors I norm...

<asp:panel> renders as <table> in Firefox 3 and <DIV> in IE7
 Hi alldoes anyone know why the ASP:PANEL control renders to a different HTML control across the two browsers (IE7 and FF3)?Is this a browser issue, or is this something I can set in my code?Thanks in advance. I don't get that behaviour. There must be something else going on. A very simple test case produces a div in both. Hi, Its rendering as div control in both the browsers as. <div id="Panel1" style="height:50px;width:125px;">Regards,Manishwww.ComponentOne.com Manish Singhalwww.ComponentOne.com Perhaps you have specified <browserCaps>...

HTML5: Add Option to Disable <audio>, <video> and <canvas> Elements
I'd like to suggest to add an option to Firefox to generally disable=20 <audio>,<video> and <canvas> elements each. If there is one thing that's really a nuisance when browsing the web = it's=20 these flickering and gaudy Flash animations the user is bugged with=20 everyday. I, for example, have intentionally not installed Flash to be able to=20 concentrate on a web site's content without being disturbed by those = tiny=20 little films trying to distract my attention when I'm working. <audio>,<video> and <canvas> will beco...

Header and Footer user control contains <html>, <body>, and <form> elements
Hi, I have read that we can not/should not use html, body and form tag in the user control. But here these tags are used in the Header control. I would like to know that although we can use those tags in User Control, should we use or should we follow other alternative for this. Thanks in advance, ---------------------------- http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpconcreatingpageletcontrol.asp ...

>>>> CAPITALS GAMES <<<<
.. ~~~!!!~~~ ================================================== ================================================== CLICK HERE TO ENTER: >>> http://web-paradise.cn/3/capitals-games <<< ================================================== ================================================== .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....

>>>> BUY RAM <<<<
.. ~~~*@@@*~~~ ================================================== ================================================== ENTER HERE: >>> http://web-for-you.cn/about/buy-ram <<< ================================================== ================================================== .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...

SM: XUL <window> elements vs XUL <dialog> elements
Why is it that OS/2 uses XUL <window> elements for such things as the preferences panel, the message send status window, etc., but other platforms (i.e., Windows) use XUL <dialog> elements? This results in us having that g-d-awful default SeaMonkey drawing for windows which would normally not have an icon at all. Thoughts? Comments? Sorry, my friends; it's been a long couple of weeks, with no immediate end in sight. I've come down to getting aggravated over the most trivial of items... ;-) -- Lewis ----------------------------------------------------...

C<< >> vs C<< >> vs C<< x >>
Ugh. So we all know that there's this syntax for formatting codes (n=E9s "interio= r sequences") like C<< x >>. And that tokenizes as three tokens: "C<< ", open-C code "x", content " >>" close-code matching the C open-code And this is explicated by what I wrote in perlpodspec where I say that such a code... * starts with a capital letter (just US-ASCII [A-Z]) followed by two or more "<"'s, one or more whitespace characters, * any number of characters * one or more whit...

Exactly one <siteMapNode> element is required directly inside the <siteMap> element.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <siteMap xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/AspNet/SiteMap-File-1.0" > <siteMapNode url="Default.aspx" title="Shopping" description="Shop for your favorite products." roles=""> <siteMapNode url="Order.aspx" title="order products" description="Order a product" roles="" /> <siteMapNode url="cart.aspx" title="shopping carts" description="view your shopping cart" roles="" /> <siteMapNode url="checkout1.aspx" title="check out" description="finalize your purchase" roles="" /> </siteMapNode> <siteMapNode...

Exactly one <siteMapNode> element is required directly inside the <siteMap> element
I get this error when using the following sitemap file. I need a one level menu only, so that I have a possibility to add levels later. Looking to check the time, goto http://whatisthetime.in/[xxx] replace [xxx] with your city name. SiteMap file needs to have single outermost <siteMapNode> element. Give some random name to the outermost node say "Default" and set the property - <asp:SiteMapDataSource ID="SiteMapDataSource1" runat="server" ShowStartingNode="False" /> This ShowStartingNode property (when set FALSE) eli...

Calling server function outside the form element messes up the hierarchy (like <title> <% myTitle %> <title> )
I'm pretty new to internet development, haven't done any prior to .net, so I might be missing something to obvious.. From what I understand Page.Controls is a collection of 3 elements - literal control, form & anoether litteral control I have a code like this "HtmlForm htmlForm =(HtmlForm) Page.Controls[1];" in my base page, which is inherrited by multiple pages. However, if I have a server side function call outside the <Form></Form> element (like this "<title> <% myTitle %> <title> ") I no longer have a collection of 3 elements...

Web resources about - <device> element - mozilla.firefox.prerelease


Resources last updated: 12/8/2015 6:46:44 AM