http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8406
Summary: Stricter Specifications on Mouse Events Specifically
primary, auxillary, and secondary default actions
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
We were wondering why there is a quite complicated resolution algorithm
to determine the ApplicationCache that belongs to the SharedWorker
rather than just passing the ApplicationCache to the SharedWorker at
creation time (i.e. as constructor
Hi Larry,
On Nov 19, 2009, at 15:18 , Robin Berjon wrote:
the WebApps WG deeply thank you for you comments on the widgets URI last
call. We decided to split them over several emails that have been posted to
the list with proposed responses to them. We would be grateful if you could
On Nov 30, 2009, at 22:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
I *really* like it; you never fail to impress Mr Berjon :)
*bows*
I learn from working with the best, sir.
... but the
first para should just be a Note: (we don't want to have that in as
normative text because it describes behavior specified
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 22:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
I *really* like it; you never fail to impress Mr Berjon :)
*bows*
I learn from working with the best, sir.
... but the
first para should just be a Note: (we don't want to have that in as
normative text because it
Hi Marcos, Robin,
Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:55 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
I'm trying to implement the element-based
FYI. The focus of this new mailing list is broader than the focus of the
current mailing list. If you're interested in joining, send an e-mail with the
subject subscribe to public-web-security-requ...@w3.org.
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C t...@w3.org
Begin forwarded message:
From: Thomas
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:49:58 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
Hi folks,
this is a Call for consensus to request publishing the Selectors API
draft at
On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Marcos, Robin,
Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:55 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cyril Concolato
Hi Art, All,
ACCESS does not support this publication.
Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were not all
addressed.
Since the PAG has started with the earlier draft of WARP and relation to PAG
was an argument for LC#2, we assume that the group still has time to
On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
Hi Art, All,
ACCESS does not support this publication.
Our motivation is that the comments received during the LC#1 were not all
addressed.
Please list exactly which comment were not addressed.
Since
I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail,
but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically
ask for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web
databases work?
localStorgage.atomicTransaction(function() {
localStorage[counter]++;
});
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail,
but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically
ask for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web
databases work?
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Adam Barth wrote:
I haven't been following the localStorage mutex discussion in detail,
but have we already rejected the idea of having content specifically ask
for the mutex via a transaction callback, similar to how web databases
work?
One of the limitations is we
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface
(CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and
are not likely to in the future.
For the record, we've made no progress because I explicitly wasn't going
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
ECMAScript defines a ToPrimitive conversion (Section 9.1 of ECMA-262 5th
edition). I think the right thing to do would be for some spec to point
to those steps. Probably it has to be Web Database, because in many
cases where a Web IDL method
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I had few thoughts/questions/issues with the WebSimpleDB proposal:
* No O(log n) access to position/counts in index sequences - If you
want find all the entities that have a price less than 10, it is quite
easy (assuming there is an index on that
17 matches
Mail list logo
