Re: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21
On Apr/14/2011 6:39 PM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/ If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April 2011 at the latest: There are currently two bugs filed against the spec. Do these bugs count as last call comments? http://bit.ly/fl2uSB Yes, I think both of these bugs should be considered LC comments. (Bug 12067 was submitted between the Feb 12 "is Workers ready for LC?" query [1] and the Feb 28 CfC to publish the LC [2]. As such, it probably should have been considered before publishing the LC.) On March 9, Adrian submitted comments after the CfC closed and those comments should also be considered LC comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0877.html -AB [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0536.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0696.html
Re: More questions about contextual reference nodes
Lachlan Hunt:
> However, with the way in which the IDL is overloaded, it's not clear
> to me which of the two overloaded methods gets invoked when the
> parameter is null.
>
> The IDL says:
> querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional Element refElement);
> querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in sequence refNodes);
>
> When the author invokes:
>
> x.querySelector("a", null);
>
> Does it invoke the method with refElement or refNodes?
That is one of the unsatisfactory things about the way overloading is
currently handled in Web IDL. In situations where null is a valid value
for more than one overload, it needs to be described in prose, but only
if it matters which of the two operations is considered to be invoked.
See the blue box just below this footnote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#distinguishable-interface-note
Step 4 of the algorithm for the behaviour of Function objects that
correspond to IDL operations
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-operations
says
If S contains more than one entry, then the operation call is
ambiguous. Remove all but one entry from S according to rules
specified in the description of interface I, or arbitrarily if no such
rules exist.
Note that it is ambiguous if you have, say
querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional Element refElement);
querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in Node[] refNodes);
since null is a valid value for both Element and Node[]. With
querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional Element refElement);
querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in sequence refNodes);
null is not a valid value for sequence, so passing null calls the
first of the two overloads. That is because in the overload resolution
algorithm
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-overload-resolution-algorithm
step 3.2.2 only considers object, interface types, nullable types and
array types when “null” is passed as an argument.
--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Re: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of > Web Workers: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/ > > If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April > 2011 at the latest: There are currently two bugs filed against the spec. Do these bugs count as last call comments? http://bit.ly/fl2uSB / Jonas
Re: More questions about contextual reference nodes
On 4/13/11 6:20 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Which conversion algorithm applies here? Is it 4.1.15. object, or 4.1.16. Interface types? http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-object The latter, since Node is an interface type. -Boris
Re: More questions about contextual reference nodes
On 4/13/11 5:43 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I didn't think so, but then perhaps I misunderstand what the spec means
by a native object. ECMAScript defines a native object as
"object in an ECMAScript implementation whose semantics are fully
defined by this specification rather than by the host environment."
So that would include things like Array, String, etc.
Ineed.
I don't think NodeList fits that definition, since it's provided by the host
environment, not ECMAScript.
That's correct.
I also thought something like this would not be a native object either:
function init() {
...
}
var x = new init();
That's a native object; the behavior of that set of operations is
completely defined by the ES spec.
JQuery more or less does that to create an object with custom
properties, and then basically uses Array.prototype.push.apply(x, elms)
to add the collection to that object.
Right; jquery's got native objects there.
It's nice so that cases where authors try to pass in an array of things
that aren't nodes are handled well. The other alternative is just to
accept a collection of anything, and iterate through it to find all the
Element nodes, ignoring everything else. I don't see any reason to
prefer the latter approach.
I would really prefer we not do the latter.
-Boris
Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events; deadline April 21
Original Message Subject: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events; deadline April 21 Resent-Date:Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:36:09 + Resent-From: Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:34:08 -0500 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of Server-sent Events: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-eventsource-20110310/ If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April 2011 at the latest: public-webapps@w3.org -Art Barstow
Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21
Original Message Subject:RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21 Resent-Date:Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:37:17 + Resent-From: Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:34:33 -0500 From: ext Arthur Barstow To: public-webapps This is a Request for Comments for the March 10 Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110310/ If you have any comments, please send them to the following list by 21 April 2011 at the latest: public-webapps@w3.org -Art Barstow
Re: [FileAPI] File.slice spec bug
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:16 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 04/14/2011 03:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >>> It would be nice to hear from someone at Opera about their willingness to >>> commit to this change >>> as well. > > As a general point we think that making breaking changes to APIs with > multiple compatible implementations that are already shipping is a really > bad idea. So let's try and make this a one off. > > That said, we will go along with the plan, but we can't commit to a timeline > for releasing the changed version. Thanks James! I agree this is something we should really avoid. The best way I think we can do that in the future is to prefix implementations until specs are agreed to be in a more stable state. I certainly have had my fair share in not doing so enough, so not trying to shift blame here. / Jonas
Re: [FileAPI] File.slice spec bug
On 04/14/2011 03:04 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: It would be nice to hear from someone at Opera about their willingness to commit to this change as well. As a general point we think that making breaking changes to APIs with multiple compatible implementations that are already shipping is a really bad idea. So let's try and make this a one off. That said, we will go along with the plan, but we can't commit to a timeline for releasing the changed version.
