Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML5

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]

Re: Documenting uses of Github at Mozilla

Since all these repo links are likely to become unfindable in email... Contributions welcome: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Github Thanks, Tantek On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Mike Hoye mh...@mozilla.com wrote: On 2014-10-01 12:16 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-10-01, 11:59 AM, Ralph Giles

Re: Intent to ship: CSS display:contents

I'll rephrase Paul Irish's excellent question. Rather than an email to be lost in archives, could you provide a URL to a wiki page where the web designer / developer use-cases for display:contents are documented, e.g. one use-case per section? If not, I'm happy to ask the CSSWG myself. Tantek

Re: Intent to implement and ship FormData on workers

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 1/30/15 1:30 AM, nsm.nik...@gmail.com wrote: Well my work on getting FormData on workers was because Fetch uses it, and there doesn't seem to have been demand for it on workers before. That's fair, but it seems like

Re: Intent to deprecate: persistent permissions over HTTP

FWIW I am for the original set of HTTPS only restrictions proposed by Anne. I think doing so sends a strong security minded message, even if some think too strong. Pop-ups: I realize including pop-ups in this is a minority opinion (judging by this thread), however, I have not seen a single

Re: Intent to Ship: CSS Scroll Snapping on Desktop

From the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1138658 This will be on by default in 39 right? Do we have any nice example pages to show it off? Being able to use CSS Snap Points has also come up in recent #indiewebcamp discussions, so FWIW, there are also independent web developers

[meta] Intent to implement - captured some docs on wikimo

Having followed the Intent to implement emails for a while, and noticing that there was already an email template for it on wikimo: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/ExposureGuidelines#Intent_to_Implement I went ahead and wrote up a page about this practice, along with links to Blink/MS

[meta] Intent to implement and Security Privacy concerns

One of the suggested additions to intent to implement emails: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/ExposureGuidelines#Intent_to_Implement is a statement regarding Security Privacy concerns, because those have often been noted as brief summary statements in some past intent to implement emails.

Re: [meta] Intent to implement - captured some docs on wikimo

Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Will someone be maintaining this page? I'm worried that having an out-of-date page might create more confusion than information. / Jonas On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Tantek Çelik tan...@cs.stanford.edu wrote: Having followed the Intent to implement emails

Re: Intent to change UA stylesheet of abbr and acronym (using border-bottom - CSS 3 text-decoration)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Masayuki Nakano masay...@d-toybox.com wrote: HTML5 spec suggests the style of abbr and acronym is: abbr[title], acronym[title] { text-decoration: dotted underline; } http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/rendering.html#phrasing-content-0 However, we still use:

Re: Intent to implement and ship: document.execCommand(cut/copy)

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-05-05 6:31 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: On 05/05/2015 02:51 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: Sites such as Github currently use Flash in order to allow people to copy text to the clipboard by clicking a button in

Re: Intent to implement and ship: document.execCommand(cut/copy)

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Tantek Çelik tan...@cs.stanford.edu wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ehsan Akhgari ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-05-05 6:31 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: On 05/05/2015

Re: Intent to implement and ship: document.execCommand(cut/copy)

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote: On 06/05/15 08:00, Tantek Çelik wrote: Result: loss of user data that user had put into the clipboard previously. This isn't possible with current DOM APIs and is a new vulnerability introduced by cut/copy. Given

Re: Intent to implement and ship: document.execCommand(cut/copy)

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Martin Thomson m...@mozilla.com wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Adam Roach a...@mozilla.com wrote: Keep in mind the thesis of that plan isn't that we restrict security-sensitive features to https -- it's that /all new stuff/ is restricted to https. If

Re: Intent to implement and ship: document.execCommand(cut/copy)

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Martin Thomson m...@mozilla.com wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Doug Turner do...@mozilla.com wrote: This is important. We could mitigate by requiring https, only allowing the top level document access these clipboard apis, Thanks Doug. I think your

Re: Linked Data and a new Browser API event

approach (so we can recommend the easiest, least work, and most openly developed/maintained approach to authors and site owners) - microformats2. I'm happy to provide citations/specs for these, as well as follow-up on any detailed questions. Thanks, Tantek Çelik Web Standards Lead Mozilla

Re: Linked Data must die. (was: Linked Data and a new Browser API event)

Great discussion and feedback in this thread - plenty to act on. Thanks Ted Clancy for kicking this off with an impassioned reality check. And Thanks in particular to Benjamin Francis for summarizing product requirements and use-cases, and especially to both Ted and Ben taking the time last week

Re: Intent to implement and ship: CSS and SVG filters for canvas 2D

Just to keep this thread moving forward: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Markus Stange msta...@themasta.com wrote: On 2015-06-15 8:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote: I think we're not quite there yet, but we're

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Web Platform and Timed Media Working Groups

to split off. I think it would be reasonable for us to record a comment along the > lines of the above paragraph and have Media as a TF of Platform. > Other opinions on this? I don't have a strong opinion about splitting media off as a separate WG or keeping it as a TF of Web Platform. Henri, if you want to write up a summary comment about Media TF vs WG to submit as part of the charter review, we can include that in our charter response as well. Thanks, Tantek Çelik ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement & ship: support for a subset of -webkit prefixed CSS properties & features

Daniel, Mike, and the whole compat team, thank you for diligently figuring out all the nasty details here and pushing this contentious "feature" forward. This is a tough balance for the good of our users, and I'm grateful for all the thought and careful consideration you have put into it. We

Re: Intent to ship: Canvas CSS/SVG filters

Awesome and congrats Tobias! -tantek On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Tobias Schneider wrote: > I intend to turn Canvas CSS/SVG filters on by default on all platforms. It > has been developed behind the canvas.filters.enabled preference. Google's > Chrome is already

Re: Intent to remove:

Agreed. Henri, is there a particular release you plan to "unship" this for? -t On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > I think removing this is reasonable at this point > > -Boris > > ___ > dev-platform mailing

Re: Intent to Ship: HTML5 and tags

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Ting-Yu Lin wrote: > To summarize the feedback so far, I'd still like to ship and > without |summary::marker| because > > 1) No other browsers support summary::marker yet. This is a reason to ship *with* it IMO, per showing standards

Re: Intent to Ship: HTML5 and tags

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/19/16 2:44 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> >> The key question to consider about delaying |summary::marker| support >> is whether or not we (e.g. you) think the spec for ::marker is >> &

Re: Intent to implement and ship CSS 'appearance' with '-webkit-appearance' as an alias. Unship '-moz-appearance'.

Makes sense Mats, exactly as you divided it up. Thanks for pushing this. Note: the 'appearance' property was previously in a CSS3 UI CR: * https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#appearance Where it was stable for nearly 8 years but dropped subsequently due to lack of interop (actual

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

Note the major changes summary: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/web-platform-charter-draft.html#changes-from-wp1 This is my first pass review (already found problems). I may try to review in more depth to see what (if any) specific wording changes there are in the charter (is there a paragraph by

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 9/29/16 10:46 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: >>> >>> New deliverables: >>>Microdata >> >> >> This should be dropped from the charter (FO). >> >>

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Platform Working Group

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:51 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2016-09-29 07:46 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> > Marked as deliverables to be taken up if incubation suggests likely >> > success: >> > Background Synchronisation; Files

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:25 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Friday 2016-10-21 15:01 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> Support revised charter, with requested changes: >> * Hyperlink the phrase "Community Group" in the charter to the >&g

Re: Intent to implement: CSS shape-outside property

This is great news! I've been hearing increasing web designer / developer requests for this feature in particularly in the past couple of months so it's really good to see some momentum here. Thanks Ting-Yu Lin! Tantek On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Ting-Yu Lin wrote: >

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: WebIDL Level 1

tl;dr: We must formally object to the advancement of W3C Proposed Recommendation: WebIDL Level 1 . Five (areas of) reasons (and details) given below. -t On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/11/16 1:23

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Automotive Working Group

Ekr, This sounds to me like there are sufficient reasons to formally object to this charter, and as Martin points out, a special case of IoT/WoT (with additional concerns!). David, Thus I too think we should formally object, link to our previous formal objection of the WoT charter (since nearly

Re: Intent to restrict to secure contexts: navigator.geolocation

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2016-10-21 3:49 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: >> The geolocation API allows web pages to request the user's geolocation, >> drawing from things like GPS on mobile, and doing WiFi / IP based >> geolocation on desktop.

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

I have reviewed the charter and the current set of deliverables. The work appears to be proceeding reasonably (pragmatically, with many members/implementers including Apple and Google) and reasonably minimally scoped. There is also the companion Second Screen Community Group which appears to be

Re: Intent to ship: CSS Grid

Agreed. In the perspective of the increasing shift toward incubation at W3C (before WG and certainly before WD or CR), subgrid has yet to be sufficiently incubated to really implement in the context of a spec, unlike the rest of grid which has been prototyped with multiple iterations (by other

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

Support :) I'm co-chair of the WG that produced this PR, as well as familiar with and contributed to its incubation/prototyping/implementation (including on my own site tantek.com) in the IndieWeb community before we brought it to a W3C WG for broader review and consideration. Happy to answer

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> W3C Editor's draft: https://webmention.net/draft/ > > Wow, that is an extraordinarily wordy document for something that does > so little. It

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > The JSON reference really needs to be to RFC 7159, not 4627. (blocking, but > trivial issue) Will file an issue on that. > There should be some mention of the prior art in this space. Why in the spec? (honestly

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

For the record, I have reviewed the HTML5.1 changes: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-html51-20160915/changes.html#changes which are in themselves not the easiest to review, filed this accordingly: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/592 In addition to that editorial request, the one technically

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Benjamin Francis > wrote: >> Much more compelling is the member submission from EVRYTHNG which also forms >> the basis of the book, Building the Web of Things. > >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

To add to this thread, I think there are still fundamental security issues, which have only gotten worse, that the charter does not address, nor has the incubation to date come even close to understanding, much less prototyping / stress-testing. 1. The rapid deployment of WoT/IoT devices poses

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/15/16 12:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: >> >> Its more information than nothing. > > > I'm not sure it is. At least when you have nothing you _know_ you have > nothing, so might think about other ways to find out what you

Re: Intent to ship: NetworkInformation

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 15/12/16 14:20, Daniel Stenberg wrote: >> Looking at that collection of existing user, basically all of them want >> the user to anser this question: >> >> "Use expensive traffic (y/n)" > > And this should be an

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Webmention

the Webmention PR and asking for these changes. Details inline below: On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: >> >>> There should be some mention of the p

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Data on the Web Best Practices

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > David, > > Le 29 déc. 2016 à 09:15, L. David Baron a écrit : >> Data on the Web Best Practices >> https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/ > > I didn't participate to this group and this document, but I went

Re: Intent to implement: HTML5 element

I'm also curious how interactions between dialog.showModal() and then controls inside of that going Fullscreen work (and then perhaps a dialog inside that fullscreen view, etc.) Does "escape" key escape out of one layer of dialog/fullscreen? multiple? all? Tantek On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:12 PM,

Re: Intent to implement: HTML5 element

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> I mean, the attribute is probably a lost cause >> >> Why? Is there significant usage, or at least wide implementation, of that >> part of the

Re: Intent to implement: CSS property `line-height-step`

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:16 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 03/31/2017 07:55 AM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> On Friday 2017-03-31 12:11 +0800, Tommy Kuo wrote: >>> >>> **Summary** >>> >>> I am intent to implement the property `line-height-step`. And it would be >>>

Heads-up: CfC for W3C Microdata FPWD

The Web Platform WG has issued a call for consensus to publish a FPWD of HTML Microdata as a spec: https://github.com/w3c/microdata/issues/7 If we don't think this should eventually become a W3C Recommendation, it's helpful to explicitly object sooner rather than later. Previously we (Mozilla)

Re: Intent to implement: CSS text-justify property

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, fantasai wrote: > On 02/08/2017 11:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >> On 2/8/17 5:08 AM, Jeremy Chen wrote: >>> >>> Link to standard: >>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-text-3/#text-justify-property >> >> >> How stable is this spec? >>

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Commerce Interest Group

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a new charter for: > > Web Commerce Interest Group > https://www.w3.org/2017/03/commerce-charter.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017Jul/0008.html Context: while

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > I've taken what you (Tantek) wrote and made minor changes to yield > the following Formal Objection to the Web Platform WG charter. This looks good, appreciate your edits. > Note > that I added DOM 4 to the list,

Re: W3C Charter Advance Notice: Web Platform (recharter) & Service Workers WGs

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Friday 2017-05-12 15:58 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: >> The W3C gave advance notice that 2 new charters are under >> development: >> >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2017May/0006.html >>

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebVR Working Group

Given that we have a day left to respond to this poll, we should begin writing up at least a draft answer with known facts that we can iterate on as we get more information. Rough draft WebVR proposed charter response points for consideration: 1. Timing is good. We think WebVR is ready for a WG

Re: Intent to unship: HTML scoped style sheets (

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> Why only in the medium term? Restyling is very costly for browser.xul >> right now, and it would be very nice if we can use Stylo to gain some >> advantages

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Commerce Interest Group

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:07 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2017-07-20 04:07 -0400, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> On July 18, 2017 at 9:58:40 AM, Tantek Çelik (tan...@cs.stanford.edu) wrote: >> > I'd like to hear feedback from Marcos (cc'

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendations: WAI-ARIA and Core Accessibility API Mappings

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:10 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > Two W3C Proposed Recommendations are available for the membership of > W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: > > Core Accessibility API Mappings 1.1 >

Re: ARIA implementation plans (was Re: W3C Proposed Recommendations: WAI-ARIA and Core Accessibility API Mappings)

Thanks David Bolter, this helps a lot. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:25 PM, David Bolter <dbol...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hi Tantek, > > I spun this off the rec proposals thread as per your suggestion. > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu>

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: IndexedDB 2.0

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bevis Tseng wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:05 PM L. David Baron wrote: > >> >> Given that we implement the specification as described in: >> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/10/whats-new-in-indexeddb-2-0/ >> and that

Re: Intent to remove Ambient Light and Proximity sensor APIs

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 17/12/17 15:29, Jonathan Kingston wrote: >> I am suggesting the removal of both Ambient Light and Proximity Sensor APIs >> via a preference so we can ensure there is no adverse impact to the web >> with a quick

Re: Intent to ship: CSS Shapes Module Level 1 (partial)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Ting-Yu Lin wrote: > Thank you for all the feedback. I feel the safest plan is to ship the entire > module at once. It also saves some work to implement two preferences to > exclude the shape-outside: value which we don't render in the first >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: JSON-LD Working Group

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > On 4/27/18 2:02 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> On Friday 2018-04-27 10:07 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> >>> For this reason, I think we should resist introducing dependencies on >>> JSON-LD in formats and APIs that are

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: JSON-LD Working Group

This looks good and clearly covers all the concerns we discussed. Thanks for writing this up. If possible let’s make our answers public on this so we may more easily cite them in other discussions. This isn’t the last we’ve seen of the quiet attempts to JSON-LDify the web platform. -Tantek On

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

This is an improvement and I think has a better chance of effecting change with the specific proposals. We're still making this an FO right? (I think we should) perhaps: s/We would ask that:/We ask (formal objection) that: Your "open to other paths" closing statement provides an out to

Re: Intent to unship: navigator.registerContentHandler()

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Fabrice Desre wrote: >> WebShare is more a trimmed down version of the WebActivities/WebIntents >> apis. I think it's unfortunate that instead of fixing the issues

Re: Intent to unship: navigator.registerContentHandler()

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:51 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2018-01-03 15:15 +, Jonathan Kingston wrote: >> I am suggesting the removal of navigator.registerContentHandler >> >> API

Re: Intent to ship: overscroll-behavior

SGTM. As there's soon going to be two shipping implementations, it's long past time to move the overscroll-behavior spec from WICG to CSSWG. Related issue if anyone is interested in tracking this: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2179 Thanks, Tantek On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:57 PM,

Re: Intent to unship: navigator.registerContentHandler()

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> > wrote: >> >> Also good methodology worth repeating: >>"thinking ... through all the way up to an

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web Payments Working Group

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 2/2/18 11:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >> wrote: >>> What you have seems fine (modulo s/Web Auth/Web Authentcation/). The >>> first

Re: Intent to unship: ::-moz-math-anonymous.

SGTM. I did not find any references on MDN, so nothing to update there AFAIK. However with a broader web search I found https://gist.github.com/yields/6648240 Is ::-moz-math-anonymous special? (last of its kind?) Or would the same reasoning apply to removing access to ::-moz-math-stretchy or any

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

LGTM. Thanks David. -t On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > I submitted comments on both charters: > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0016.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0015.html > > (I'm still able to

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > So some comments on the ARIA charter at > https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : tl;dr: We should show general support for work happening in this area (per Jamie's email), however we should point out critical flaws in the charter

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

worse to have something out there claiming to be a standard (a W3C Recommendation), when either no one is supporting it (hence fiction), or there is only one implementation (not a standard, because there is no interop). Tantek > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Tantek Çelik > wrote: >>

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

dditional details you provided below can help us with our charter response. > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Tantek Çelik > wrote: >> >> > The only thing worth >> > noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that >> > may

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:04 PM, James Teh wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> So some comments on the ARIA charter at >> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : >> ... >> I guess it seems OK to have only one implementation >> if there's really only going

Re: Intent to implement: Scrollbar color properties

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: > Hi Xidorn, > >> On Jul 8, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: >> Hopefully with these properties (and one another controlling scrollbar width >> or style to fulfill thin scrollbar usecases), WebKit and Blink would be able >> to unship their

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: WOFF 2.0

Just to add a pair of unfamiliar eyes to this review, the implementation report and test results look quite good: [1] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Implementation.html Only nit: * The decoder test results show a single test "validation-off-012" with no passing implementation: [2]

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: CSS Color Module Level 3

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C > (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: > > CSS Color Module Level 3 >

Re: Intent to ship: Allow the overflow shorthand to accept two values.

Great to see this moving forward. Thanks Emilio! -Tantek On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > Hi, > > In bug 1453148 I'm planning to implement the CSSWG resolution at: > > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2484 > > It's a very

Re: Intent to ship: scrollbar-color and scrollbar-width properties

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > As of Firefox 64, I intend to turn scrollbar-color and scrollbar-width > properties on by default on all platforms. They have been developed behind > pref "layout.css.scrollbar-colors.enabled" and > "layout.css.scrollbar-width.enabled"

Re: Intent to ship: implicit rel=noopener for target=_blank on anchor and area elements

For the archives, s/ref/rel in subject. I am seeing some publisher uptake of rel="noopener" so it is good that we are shipping this. Thanks Andrea, Tantek On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:52 AM Andrea Marchesini wrote: > > I intend to turn "implicit ref=noopener for anchor and area elements for >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: SVG Working Group

Comments inline. On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 5:54 PM L. David Baron wrote: > > On Sunday 2018-12-23 09:59 -0800, L. David Baron wrote: > > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > > > Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Working Group > > https://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/svg-2019-ac.html > >

Re: Intent to ship: CSS subgrid

Agreed with clarification. Declarative text/css stylesheets not restricted. Imperative new APIs (like Houdini APIs) should be restricted to secure contexts by default. Thanks, Tantek On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:53 PM Daniel Veditz wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:27 PM Tantek Çelik

Re: Intent to ship: CSS subgrid

Thanks Dan. I concur with the priorities, impacts, and conclusions you've outlined. In practice I believe 100% of the CSS features we have shipped (Intent to Implement/Ship emails) in the past year+ have been exposed to insecure contexts. Based on your reasoning, and our consistent intent emails

Re: Handing off W3C Advisory Committee duties

n who expresses official Mozilla positions on > things to W3C, and designates Mozilla representatives to working > groups, who can then represent Mozilla in the discussions within > working groups. > > I've just handed off the responsibility of being the Advisory > Committee R