[Bug 17485] Whatsapp application can not connect to server
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17485 Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||ms2...@gmail.com Resolution||NEEDSINFO -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 17486] Whatsapp application can not connect to server
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17486 Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||ms2...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 2012-06-14 08:22:23 UTC --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 17485 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Updates to Selectors API
Hi, I have updated the specification for Selectors API Level 1, which is currently in CR. Most of it was editorial in nature, to bring it in line with Selectors API Level 2, except without adding any of the new features like findAll() or or matches(). Importantly, the IDL has now been updated to comply with the most recent WebIDL specificiation. This was basically to split it up into 3 partial interfaces, just like what was previously done in v2. Some of the prose was rewritten, but none of the changes should adversely affect implementation requirements. This was mostly done by back porting the content from v2, but while ensuring that all the normative references still refer to the older, stable specs. (e.g. DOM3Core instead of using DOM4, as is used in the v2 draft.) This now makes v1 a proper subset of v2. In the process, I also made a few minor editorial changes to v2 just to tidy it up. At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or possibly move it up to PR. We can also publish v2. as a new WD. Alternatively, we could forgo any further progress with v1 and let v2 supersede it entirely, at which point I could simply rename it back to Selectors API without a version number and move on. (This is my preferred approach). http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/ http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/ -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Reminder: RfC: LCWD of Indexed Database; deadline June 21
Original Message Subject:RfC: LCWD of Indexed Database; deadline June 21 Resent-Date:Thu, 24 May 2012 17:21:06 + Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:20:20 -0400 From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com To: public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org This is a Request for Comments re the 24-May-2012 LCWD version of Indexed Database: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-IndexedDB-20120524/ The comment deadline is June 21 and all comments should be sent to the public-webapps@w3.org list. -Thanks, AB
Re: Updates to Selectors API
* Lachlan Hunt wrote: At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or possibly move it up to PR. We can also publish v2. as a new WD. It does not seem that additional implementation experience is required to make sure no major changes are needed, so, Proposed Recommendation. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Re: [webcomponents] HTML Parsing and the template element
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Rafael Weinstein wrote: On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote: Perhaps lost among other updates was the fact that I've gotten the first draft of HTML Templates spec out: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html I think the task previously was to show how dramatic the changes to the parser would need to be. Talking to Dimitri, it sounds to me like they turned out to be less open-heart-surgery and more quick outpatient procedure. Adam, Hixie, Henri, how do you guys feel about the invasiveness of the parser changes that Dimitri has turned out here? I think it's more or less ok [...] Does anyone object to me adding template, content, and shadow to the HTML parser spec next week? I don't have a good handle on how much commitment there is from non-Chrome parties here. I don't want to add this to the spec only to find that people think it's a good idea but only one vendor has plans to implement it. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: www-dom vs public-webapps WAS: [DOM4] Mutation algorithm imposed order on document children
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:35:58 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Ojan Vafai wrote: This confusion seems to come up a lot since DOM is part of public-webapps but uses a separate mailing list. Maybe it's time to reconsider that decision? It's the editors of the specs who have the largest say here IMO. The reason for using it was in part that there were people there who were working on dom and not on the (quite high traffic) webapps list which discusses many other things. The confusion is not going to go away by changing the proper mailing list again Right :S the case is a good example, since the commenter references the right document and that document says to post to www-dom, but he sent it elsewhere. Others will assume www-dom is the right list for various reasons Like, because many DOM documents say so... and so you will end up with discussions on both lists. Yeah. By and large (there are exceptions, and editors have to track them, but that will always be so) the discussion has managed to sit on www-dom for a long time. The main thing that let's use some other list does where participants are not very well synchronized is annoying people with You posted to the wrong list! mails. An option might be to merge them, but that may be a first for the W3C, so it's unclear that the infrastructure would support this. It's probably possible. It is likely a bunch of manual work, and I doubt it is justified. cheers Chaals -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
