On Sep 29, 2009, at 08:17 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 01:19 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
If at all possible I'd rather it went to LC ASAP, and if needed
that new stuff be done
On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:14 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
ta-VngNBkhUXz:
If the protocol used for acquisition of a potential Zip archive does
not provide, or otherwise include, a media type, then a user agent
should treat the acquired potential Zip archive as if it has been
acquired from a
On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:36 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
For what it's worth, given that:
* PC has been vastly rewritten
* test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK)
* you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements
which
could be assessed as a substantive change
I
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:36 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
For what it's worth, given that:
* PC has been vastly rewritten
* test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK)
* you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements which
could be assessed as a
Hi Marcos,
5.4.2#2.4.1
... apply the rule for dealing with an invalid Zip archive ...
And
In the event that an implementation encounters an invalid Zip archive ...
In the case the UA is a CC, it must inform the author that the Zip archive
is an invalid Zip archive. From PC.
Do not play
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
Hi Marcos,
5.4.2#2.4.1
... apply the rule for dealing with an invalid Zip archive ...
And
In the event that an implementation encounters an invalid Zip archive ...
In the case the UA is a CC, it must
Below is the draft agenda for the October 1 Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com wrote:
2009/9/24 Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 16:51 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
But instead of ignored it says skipped — and it's not clear
whether skipped has the same meaning.
Good point. The second must
In section 4.4.2 of WebIDL, there is the following language:
As soon as a name N begins being able to be used to index
the host object, a property called the corresponding named
property MUST be created on the host object...
IndexGetter has similar verbiage. I'm really not clear on this
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux d...@w3.org wrote:
Le mercredi 30 septembre 2009 à 15:32 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit :
Also, does going to LC again re-open an exclusionary period? I think
we can't go to Rec (and probably not to PR) until the exclusionary
period is
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
There already is a WebDatabase API which is SQL based. That
sounds way to close to WebDB for my comfort.
Maybe WebDatabase should be WebSQLDatabase or WebSQLDB
I have suggested this before [1], but fighting about names seems to be
a lost
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
John Resig wrote:
With that in mind, option #3 looks the best to me. It's lame that the
API
will be longer but we'll be able to use basic object detection to see
if it
exists. Unfortunately the proper scoping wasn't done the first time the
Selectors API was implemented so
12 matches
Mail list logo
