On 10/14/16 8:30 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
I searched those 23 open issues for "mixin" and found no open issue
with "mixin" in the title.
WebIDL has two bug tracking systems at the moment. People started using
Github for some of the new stuff, but a lot of the old issues are still
in the W3C B
tl;dr: We must formally object to the advancement of W3C Proposed
Recommendation: WebIDL Level 1
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-WebIDL-1-20160915/>. 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 AM, L. Da
On 10/11/16 6:57 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Most development seems to happen under the WHATWG, which hosts the specs
that implementors look at and the umbrella under which they discuss. The
W3C then occasionally publishes arbitrary snapshots, which don't have any
particular technical utility but, by
Yeah, from my not-super-informed perspective this is the primary benefit we
get from W3C publication of stuff that's developed elsewhere.
Most development seems to happen under the WHATWG, which hosts the specs
that implementors look at and the umbrella under which they discuss. The
W3C then occas
On Tuesday 2016-10-11 14:49 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Speaking as someone who is at best a consumer of WebIDL, what's the argument
> > for doing a snapshot at this time?
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2016J
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Speaking as someone who is at best a consumer of WebIDL, what's the argument
> for doing a snapshot at this time?
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2016JulSep/0004.html
is presumably the argument. Those pointing out this ar
Speaking as someone who is at best a consumer of WebIDL, what's the
argument for doing a snapshot at this time?
-Ekr
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > But given that it is worthwhile to advance snapshots of st
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, L. David Baron wrote:
> But given that it is worthwhile to advance snapshots of stable
> features to Recommendation every so often, is there a reason to
> oppose this particular snapshot, even though it's not a suitable
> target for implementation?
It's not worthwhi
On 10/11/16 1:23 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
But given that it is worthwhile to advance snapshots of stable
features to Recommendation every so often, is there a reason to
oppose this particular snapshot, even though it's not a suitable
target for implementation?
I think the main reason I'm wary
On Tuesday 2016-10-11 07:07 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > I'd note that Mozillians have been very involved in editing the
> > specification, but I'm not entirely sure of our level of involvement
> > in stabilizing the "release branch" t
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, L. David Baron wrote:
> I'd note that Mozillians have been very involved in editing the
> specification, but I'm not entirely sure of our level of involvement
> in stabilizing the "release branch" to be a Level 1 recommendation.
We've been opposed towards putting re
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:
WebIDL Level 1
W3C TR draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL-1/
W3C Editor's draft: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/
deadlin
12 matches
Mail list logo
