On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote
You're right that you can redo what the UA did after you unapplied the
managed transaction UA inserted. So maybe replace isn't really that
useful after
Hi everyone,
I have updated my document on http://rniwa.com/editing/undomanager.html to
address all responses I've got so far. Most of it is about clarifying
details and adding some examples.
Now, I'd really like to get your opinions on what event(s) we should have
for this to work. The
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, James Kozianski wrote:
Here are the use cases I had in mind:
1. Allow sites to conditionally show UI to promote the advantages of
registering the site as a handler.
(requires isRegistered)
2.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I still see UndoManager.replace in there. I still haven't heard any use
cases that won't be solved better with a beforeEditingAction event (and
solved ok simply using the undo() function until we have a
beforeEditingAction
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Muizelaar jmuizel...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2011-08-08, at 4:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Justin Novosad wrote:
This inquiry is regarding this page of the specification:
I just want to confirm that my understanding of this is correct:
getItems() will return a NodeList of top level microdata items and this
is irrespective of whether or not the items are actually valid in terms
of their type? That is, it is the developer's responsibility to confirm
that the
§3.1.1 includes the following:
interface HTMLDocument { ... };
Document implements HTMLDocument;
If I'm reading WebIDL correctly, this means that this expression must be
false:
document instanceof HTMLDocument
And also that this code will have no visible effect on the document object:
Thanks Philip, that really cleared things up for me.
Any chance you might adjust the 2d.drawImage.outsidesource.html test
to reflect this change in the spec?
because of the filtering requirements. If CoreGraphics can't do that
then it's broken (per the spec) regardless of how source
On 8/9/11 11:29 AM, Justin Novosad wrote:
I second that. And in support of the spec, let me just say that the
clamp-to-edge is essential for many existing canvas-based games that
use large images as sprite maps. Without clamping to the edge of the
source rectangle
We're talking about clamping
On 8/9/11 11:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
I assume that the use of an implements declaration rather than direct
inheritance is done to create a clean boundary between the DOM spec and
the HTML spec.
Or just to reflect Ian's belief that all documents should implement all
document intefaces.
FYI I'm working on an experimental extension to Chromium to allow media data
to be streamed into a media element via JavaScript. Here is the draft
spechttp://html5-mediasource-api.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.2/draft-spec/mediasource-draft-spec.html
and
pending WebKit patch
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 8/9/11 11:29 AM, Justin Novosad wrote:
I second that. And in support of the spec, let me just say that the
clamp-to-edge is essential for many existing canvas-based games that
use large images as sprite maps. Without
It sounds like it would make fast GPU-accelerated blitting difficult, even
in fairly simple cases.
Not that bad.
I can think of two ways:
A) create a cropped texture just for the sub rectangle
B) implement your own clamping in the shader
I think A) is problematic because some platforms do
On 8/9/11 8:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/9/11 11:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
I assume that the use of an implements declaration rather than direct
inheritance is done to create a clean boundary between the DOM spec and
the HTML spec.
Or just to reflect Ian's belief that all documents
On 8/9/11 1:59 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
Yes, that is the case in FF and Chrome, at least. I didn't bring that up
because my intuition is that browsers could make that change (adding
HTMLDocument members to non-HTML documents) without as much web
compatibility impact.
Maybe. Adding them to
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Likewise I still haven't heard of any examples where the apply function
isn't
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rob Crowther wrote:
I just want to confirm that my understanding of this is correct:
getItems() will return a NodeList of top level microdata items and this
is irrespective of whether or not the items are actually valid in terms
of their type? That is, it is the
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
�3.1.1 includes the following:
interface HTMLDocument { ... };
Document implements HTMLDocument;
If I'm reading WebIDL correctly, this means that this expression must be
false:
document instanceof HTMLDocument
And also that this code
On 8/9/11 12:53 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
�3.1.1 includes the following:
interface HTMLDocument { ... };
Document implements HTMLDocument;
If I'm reading WebIDL correctly, this means that this expression must be
false:
document instanceof
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
Possibly. I think an alternative is to make the HTML spec just add all
the members to Document, and then define window.HTMLDocument as
returning the Document interface object. This would make instanceof
and monkeypatching work as today.
So
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On 8/9/11 1:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
Possibly. I think an alternative is to make the HTML spec just add all
the members to Document, and then define window.HTMLDocument as
returning the Document interface object. This would make instanceof
and
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
The HTMLDocument interface object is current (at least in FF, and per
the WebIDL spec) non-enumerable. It doesn't show up in for/in loops on
the window. If the HTML spec were to add an attribute to the Window
object to define the HTMLDocument
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I don't think it's a matter of which use cases can or can't be solved with
either solution. It's pretty clear to me that all scenarios can be solved
with either API.
Right, they're isomorphic.
It's just a matter of which
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Annie Sullivan sulli...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I don't think it's a matter of which use cases can or can't be solved with
either solution. It's pretty clear to me that all scenarios can be solved
with
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Annie Sullivan sulli...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Annie Sullivan sulli...@google.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
30 matches
Mail list logo
