-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi David,
On 09/20/2014 02:23 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ HTML5
There's a call for review to W3C
Robert Strong wrote on 09/19/2014 06:59 PM:
Regarding dropping support, Silverlight on Mac does not support 64 bit and
we run it using 32 bit. So at the very least we will need html5 for sites
like Netflix before we can drop 32 bit support on OS X.
I see. So I will investigate what's necessary
-Original Message-
From: dev-platform [mailto:dev-platform-
bounces+rstrong=mozilla@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Henrik
Skupin
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 12:24 AM
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Support for 32bit on OS X and testing infrastructure
Quick status update on the progress for Mac v2 signing.
All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak branch.
This will allow us to test installing and updating before landing on
mozilla-central.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046906
Great work Chris! Thanks for linking to the study; the link gives me error
400, github links are tricky:
2014-09-22 4:06 GMT-04:00 Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com:
[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bjacob/builtin-unreachable-study
Repo link:
Hi David,
On 20/09/2014 02:23 , L. David Baron wrote:
One of the open issues being raised in this review is the status of
the spec's normative reference to the URL specification. The
specification currently references http://www.w3.org/TR/url/ ; it
might be possible for us to suggest that it
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On 20/09/14 03:46, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/19/14, 8:23 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
The biggest issue
On 20/09/2014 11:20 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote:
My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be
meaningfully implementable and/or testable.
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that, yet hasn't invested any
Hi Kyle,
On 20/09/2014 17:26 , Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com wrote:
Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl a écrit :
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;)
Hi James,
On 21/09/2014 15:00 , James Graham wrote:
Obviously I agree that good testing of implementations is key to
interoperability. I also agree that we should encourage vendors to
create and run shared tests for the web technologies that we implement.
I am substantially less convinced that
On 21/09/2014 00:29 , Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 21 sept. 2014 à 03:23, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu a écrit :
The important part to me about implementations is that
implementations shouldn't follow the known-bogus parts of the HTML5
REC once said bogosity if fixed in the WHATWG spec and HTML5.1
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
cooperation.
If that was the goal, changing the Goals section of the spec
On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
cooperation.
If that was the
On 22/09/14 13:16, Robin Berjon wrote:
I can't say it has brought about a revolution yet, but it has certainly
helped change minds. It's hard to argue against a continuously updated
test suite. It's hard to imagine that such an animal wouldn't find spec
bugs in addition to implementation
On 21/09/14 22:19, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/21/14, 9:00 AM, James Graham wrote:
More interestingly, either the specification is implementable or not.
Again, because once the REC is published everyone goes home and never
touches that document again.
The two implementations condition was
On 9/22/14, 1:18 PM, James Graham wrote:
I think you'd get a better result by asking for agreement from all the
relevant implementors that they felt that the spec was implementable.
The problem was that in some cases this was more a less a non-goal (in
some cases an anti-goal) for the spec
Specifically on the subject of what URL spec to reference, I think it
should be Mozilla's position (which I'm willing to represent) that the
W3C HTML5 spec reference the dated URL spec[1] instead of the
copy/paste/modified(even if informatively) W3C WebApps URL spec.
[1]
17 matches
Mail list logo
