in the draft look fine to me. I like my
fingers, and I don't like autocomplete :)
--
Robert Sayre
as an argument.
Ian Hickson wrote:
In my experience with cat fighting on mailing lists, what you'll
end up having is whoever gave up last wins. This is more a test of who has
the most free time, not a test of who has the strongest case.
Agree.
good luck,
Robert Sayre
a lot more
analysis by multiple parties and multiple implementations, etc
Recommendations seem to vary widely in that regard.
--
Robert Sayre
information
on the topic there either, oddly enough.
Thanks for that.
--
Robert Sayre
On 1/9/07, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These names are short, don't clash with autocomplete and provide a
superset of the functionality given by the other get* methods.
Works for me. Thanks, Anne.
--
Robert Sayre
http://franklinmint.fm
http://mozilla.com
members and the general public, I
think it should change its charter to be entirely Member Confidential.
I wouldn't want that, but it seems like it would be more accurate.
--
Robert Sayre
On 1/26/07, Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 25, 2007, at 21:51, Robert Sayre wrote:
I encourage you to read the WG charter.
http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/admin/charter
I think Jon knows the charter :)
Well, I thought I would match his tone :)
If the WG doesn't provide
On 1/26/07, Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:05:13 -0500, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roughly speaking, the rationale was that nobody except Anne felt get was
good,
there was little support for match and strong resistance, and then we got
, and Semantic Web advocates.
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
with the right part of W3C if
you
want to have an effective conversation.
If you want to create effective specifications, the way to respond to
harsh technical and ethical criticism is not to dismiss it by pointing
out that you are following the correct bureaucratic procedure.
--
Robert Sayre
. Mozilla
receives bug reports when we fail to match IE's event timing for XHR.
--
Robert Sayre
On 1/27/07, Jim Ley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The arbritrariness of the value is why I do not feel it should be in the
spec, but left to vendors.
I'd be interested to hear from browser vendors that want to change or
delete the values in Hixie's proposal.
--
Robert Sayre
/getelementbyid.asp
--
Robert Sayre
the requirements for the username and password productions
come from? Is there an old list discussion on them?
--
Robert Sayre
On 2/17/07, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:15:04 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where do the requirements for the username and password productions
come from? Is there an old list discussion on them?
Mainly offlist feedback. There's been some
the
bridge, so I personally feel that the IETF should register and
document it. The registration procedures are a lot easier now.
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
about this issue.
--
Robert Sayre
On 8/6/07, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:38:52 +0200, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Partial resource updates are a pretty compelling use case for XHR2.
You can always use POST for this, but it's a pain if you need to use
POST for something else
not consider https://example.com:443/ to be
the same origin as https://example.com/.
Agree. This should come in handy:
- RFC 3986, section 6.2.3 (Scheme-Based Normalization)
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
On Feb 19, 2008 12:20 AM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'd like to see some hard evidence of this before we write it off.
I'd like to see Maciej go first. ;)
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted this to the WhatWG mailing list, but it was suggested that this
might be a more appropriate place.
Surely WhatWG would be more convenient? I mean, the editor can just
rubber stamp it for you...
--
Robert Sayre
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I was just jumping in to clarify the :root thing. Personally I think
you're right, it would be useful to have the method on DocumentFragment,
I agree.
but that's up to Lachlan. :-)
Fully disagree.
--
Robert
for at least
5 years or something like that.
confused,
Rob
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
interpretations a real
stretch?
[1] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2008/05/07/when-the-fall-is-all-thats-left
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
and is unhappy that it has been removed
from the proposed charter for Web Apps.
Noted. I will convey your sentiments to the Team.
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter
25 matches
Mail list logo
