On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Øistein E. Andersen li...@coq.no wrote:
§ 9.1.2.5 Restrictions on content models mentions that an initial line
feed (\n) character inside pre and textarea will be removed. Should it
not cover carriage return (\r) and \r\n as well?
AFAICT, they would have been
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Also, the other motivating factor for me is access to LocalStorage from
workers. (I know it has been removed from the spec, but that is
unfortunate, no?)
This was only done because the storage mutex was added in. Now
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:12:59 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 23:40, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
§ 9.1.2.5 Restrictions on content models mentions that an initial
line feed (\n) character inside pre and textarea will be removed.
Should it not cover carriage
On Sep 11, 2009, at 11:39, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:12:59 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi
wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 23:40, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
§ 9.1.2.5 Restrictions on content models mentions that an
initial line feed (\n) character inside pre and
Aaron,
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
Do you agree with Jeremy that Database is too far along in terms of
deployment to have significant changes made to it? Given that we're
still hashing our major
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron,
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
I forgive you :).
In fact, the many design changes to the database API were made
precisely
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com
wrote:
Aaron,
You're right, my recollection is quite incorrect. My apologies for
unfairly describing the origin of the proposal.
I forgive you :).
