Comments on: HTML 5 and a different kind of ruby support http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support Cleaning up the web with Ajax Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:55:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: stimpy77 http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264117 stimpy77 Tue, 27 May 2008 21:56:08 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264117 Heh. Evil title. ROFL... Anyway, if you want [[script language="Ruby"]], try looking here: http://www.codeplex.com/DLRScript Heh. Evil title. ROFL…

Anyway, if you want [[script language="Ruby"]], try looking here: http://www.codeplex.com/DLRScript

]]> By: leftist http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264095 leftist Tue, 27 May 2008 18:55:28 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264095 As an aside, the html5 ruby gem is arguably the best way to sanitize forms data against XSS attacks. There is an excellent library floating around called Sanitize.rb which uses the gem to spit out properly escaped user content, free of scripting nasties. I started to get really bent out of shape when I realized that there were hundreds of XSS attack vectors to protect against, and so it's not without irony that the best way to prevent ALL of them is to simply ensure valid HTML 5 markup. As an aside, the html5 ruby gem is arguably the best way to sanitize forms data against XSS attacks. There is an excellent library floating around called Sanitize.rb which uses the gem to spit out properly escaped user content, free of scripting nasties.

I started to get really bent out of shape when I realized that there were hundreds of XSS attack vectors to protect against, and so it’s not without irony that the best way to prevent ALL of them is to simply ensure valid HTML 5 markup.

]]> By: polterguy http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264071 polterguy Tue, 27 May 2008 09:22:21 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264071 Actually XHTML 1.2 also had "Ruby support".... ;) @uize Vector Graphics is in HTML5 (canvas) Video is in HTML5 Sound is in HTML5 And your "portable web documents" some would claim (me among those) that's exactly what HTML IS... ;) .t Actually XHTML 1.2 also had “Ruby support”…. ;)
@uize
Vector Graphics is in HTML5 (canvas)
Video is in HTML5
Sound is in HTML5
And your “portable web documents” some would claim (me among those) that’s exactly what HTML IS… ;)

.t

]]> By: uize http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264067 uize Tue, 27 May 2008 08:28:42 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264067 What I'd like to finally see is standards support for video, sound, vector graphics, and portable Web documents. Adobe has consistently proven that the standards bodies are missing the most obvious killer apps for the Web, and this is steadily eroding the value of Web standards. There is a real risk of XHTML becoming merely a skeletal layout language for the placement of rich/compelling content implemented in proprietary technologies. It's always perplexed me that there isn't universal support in browsers for a standard portable Web site format - like perhaps a Web site that was authored to run locally and packed up into a ZIP-like format. Seems like a no-brainer. Instead, we now have this parallel universe of PDF that wants to consume more and more of the functionality that might be offered through Web standards. What I’d like to finally see is standards support for video, sound, vector graphics, and portable Web documents. Adobe has consistently proven that the standards bodies are missing the most obvious killer apps for the Web, and this is steadily eroding the value of Web standards. There is a real risk of XHTML becoming merely a skeletal layout language for the placement of rich/compelling content implemented in proprietary technologies. It’s always perplexed me that there isn’t universal support in browsers for a standard portable Web site format – like perhaps a Web site that was authored to run locally and packed up into a ZIP-like format. Seems like a no-brainer. Instead, we now have this parallel universe of PDF that wants to consume more and more of the functionality that might be offered through Web standards.

]]> By: cromwellian http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264066 cromwellian Tue, 27 May 2008 06:48:48 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264066 About time Ruby was implemented. Speaking of old W3C specs awaiting implementation, how about XForms as well? About time Ruby was implemented. Speaking of old W3C specs awaiting implementation, how about XForms as well?

]]> By: SkaveRat http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264065 SkaveRat Tue, 27 May 2008 06:42:05 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264065 almost sounds like an too long haiku almost sounds like an too long haiku

]]> By: an10ae http://ajaxian.com/archives/html-5-and-a-different-kind-of-ruby-support/comment-page-1#comment-264063 an10ae Tue, 27 May 2008 05:40:05 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=3685#comment-264063 I should've read the don't get excited part, but I was too excited. I should’ve read the don’t get excited part, but I was too excited.

]]>