Hi all,
Bryan Sullivan and myself have been working together on updating the Push API
draft based upon feedback received and the work being driven by Mozilla and
Telefonica to build a Push solution for Firefox OS (B2G).
You can find it at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
Can we extend this to custom DOM element registration somehow?
ul.news>li {
identity: x-news-item;
}
or maybe even:
ul.news>li {
identity: url(//example.com/test/news.html#news-item);
}
:DG<
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Gle
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> FWIW, while I don't find the idea of attaching event listeners this way too
> interesting (maybe I could be convinced, but event capturing is already
> convenient for most of these examples), being able to say "#myform input {
> autocomplete:
Ah, right, mea culpa.
There’s still the option of restricting attribute selectors altogether or just
not responding to attribute changes, but doing so for other kinds of changes.
Of course being dynamic in some ways but not others will make it harder to
teach and learn, but I believe the tradeo
FWIW, while I don't find the idea of attaching event listeners this way too
interesting (maybe I could be convinced, but event capturing is already
convenient for most of these examples), being able to say "#myform input {
autocomplete: off; autocorrect: off; autocapitalize: off; }" or "a { rel:
no
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2012 6:49 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>> In other
>>> words,
>>> what is preventing you from writing...
>>>
>>> .foo .bar{
>>> onclick: listen(create a .bar and attach
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Rick Waldron
>> > 3. Where did "evt" come from?
>>
>> Isn't that one of the magically-defined variables in inline event
>> handlers? If not, swap i
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lea Verou wrote:
> I *love* this idea!!
> However, I’m afraid that in all these cases, ”it’s so much more convenient”
> precisely due to the dynamic nature of CSS, so you don’t have to bind event
> handlers to cater to document changes etc. I think this proposal
On Aug 21, 2012 6:49 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2012 6:18 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> >> So, in my current proposal, you can just set an onfoo attribute:
> >>
> >> ul.special > li {
> >> onclick: "alert('You clicked me
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Rick Waldron
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> > wrote:
> >> ul.special > li {
> >> onclick: "alert('You clicked me!');
> >> evt.target.classlist.add('clicked');";
> >> }
> >
I *love* this idea!!
However, I’m afraid that in all these cases, ”it’s so much more convenient”
precisely due to the dynamic nature of CSS, so you don’t have to bind event
handlers to cater to document changes etc. I think this proposal would be much
more useful if it was dynamic in at least *s
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2012 6:18 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>> So, in my current proposal, you can just set an onfoo attribute:
>>
>> ul.special > li {
>> onclick: "alert('You clicked me!');
>> evt.target.classlist.add('clicked');";
>> }
>>
>> Here's
On Aug 21, 2012 6:18 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> >>> On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow also incorporate jquery
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> wrote:
>> ul.special > li {
>> onclick: "alert('You clicked me!');
>> evt.target.classlist.add('clicked');";
>> }
>
>
> This is certainly interesting, but...
>
> 1. It's a string that will h
Comments inline...
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> >>> On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow al
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>> On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow also incorporate jquery
>>> style
>>> live event handlers here? See previous www-dom d
On Aug 21, 2012 5:40 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow also incorporate jquery
style
> > live event handlers here? See previous www-dom discussion about this: .
I
> > suppose we'd still just want l
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On a somewhat unrelated note, could we somehow also incorporate jquery style
> live event handlers here? See previous www-dom discussion about this: . I
> suppose we'd still just want listen/unlisten(selector, handler) methods, but
> they'd get
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> >> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more con
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Travis Leithead
wrote:
>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com]
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai
>> wrote:
>> >>
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com]
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai
> wrote:
> >> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more c
On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:20, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER] of the
> Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to incorporate the spec's
> errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do so.
>
> The [Errata] has already been ref
Maciej, Ojan, and I had a further conversion about this matter off the
list, and we've concluded that we should drop the support for undoscope
content attribute altogether. So we're just going to do that and let
authors use iframe to have multiple undo managers.
I can keep it around in the spec if
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Correct. If we applied CAS on attribute changes, we'd have... problems.
>
> Because you could do something like:
>
> .foo[x=123]{ x: 234; }
> .foo[x=234]{ x: 123; }
>
> ?
Precisel
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
>> > benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have t
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
> > benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry about whether
> > the nodes exist yet that makes CS
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
>>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>> Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
>>> benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry
On Aug 21, 2012 4:03 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
> > benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry about
whether
> > the nodes exist yet that makes CSS mo
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more convenient"
> benefits. It's mainly the fact that you don't have to worry about whether
> the nodes exist yet that makes CSS more convenient.
Note that this benefit is preserved. Moving
Hi,
I think there is an error missing on the delete method of the object store. All
other mutation operations have an InvalidStateError, except the delete method.
This error is also present on the delete method inside a cursor.
Greetings,
Kristof
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18001
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18080
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18003
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I recently participated in an internal thread at Google where it was
> proposed to move a (webkit-specific) feature from an attribute to a
> CSS property, because applying it via a property is *much* more
> convenient.
>
> Similarly, some o
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18188
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18218
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15994
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18033
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18045
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18242
Erika Doyle Navara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erika.do...@microsoft.com,
I recently participated in an internal thread at Google where it was
proposed to move a (webkit-specific) feature from an attribute to a
CSS property, because applying it via a property is *much* more
convenient.
Similarly, some of the a11y folks have recently been talking about
applying aria-* at
[Re-sending from the proper address.]
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> No. Allowing the host to be moved without removing automatic transaction is
>> what causes the problem because automatic transactions need to kee
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > No. Allowing the host to be moved without removing automatic transaction
> is
> > what causes the problem because automatic transactions need to keep
> relevant
> > nodes alive.
> >
to elaborate.
I'll quote what Mike said[1] in the IRC channel then:
kennyluck: we don't have component-watching support in the
version of bugzilla we're running
I think it's a bugzilla 4 feature
MikeSmith, hmm… ok. I won't be the person pushing for it.
kennyluck: I'd l
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:20:34 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER] of
the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to incorporate the
spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do so.
I support (as an individual
Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER] of
the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to incorporate the
spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do so.
The [Errata] has already been reflected in the [Proposed-PER] (see
[Diff]) and it includes
On 8/20/12 5:05 PM, ext Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
Arthur Barstow , 2012-08-20 08:11 -0400:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
wrote:
We have public-webapps-bugzilla[1] already, but I have no idea why
we can't just turn on the component watching feature at the W3C
Bugzilla i
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> No. Allowing the host to be moved without removing automatic transaction is
> what causes the problem because automatic transactions need to keep relevant
> nodes alive.
>
> Essentially, this has the same problem has the magic iframe. We can
49 matches
Mail list logo
