On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 Feb 2010, at 18:11, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Dear i18n core,
I'm writing on behalf of the Web Apps WG about the possibility of
conducting a joint teleconference to discuss some issues with the ITS [1]
Editors, All - FYI, some information from the I18N group re normative
reference for language tags.
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Richard Ishida ish...@w3.org
Date: March 1, 2010 9:53:20 AM EST
Subject: Information about latest specs for language tagging
It seems that a number of people
Hi Marcos,
On 26 Feb 2010, at 17:44, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi i18n WG,
I've added the dir attribute and span elements to the Widgets PC
Specification, as well as a bunch of examples (which are wrong, so I
would really appreciate some help with these!).
The dir attribute is specified here:
Hi Scott,
One reason to make 'dir' available on higher-level elements is that 'dir', like
'xml:lang', has scope. It is often useful to specify a base directionality
for an entire document or block of elements rather than having to repeat it
over-and-over on each affected element. I can agree
On 1 Mar 2010, at 17:58, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Hi Scott,
One reason to make 'dir' available on higher-level elements is that
'dir', like 'xml:lang', has scope. It is often useful to specify a
base directionality for an entire document or block of elements
rather than having to repeat
Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general idea of
promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very big resource
penalty for using an API like this rather than callbacks or what's currently
specced. At the same time, it seems as though there isn't much of a
standard
Thanks Addison - and yes, I think this makes a lot of sense for a
content-style spec like HTML, however as the Widgets PC is a
configuration document most of which is IRIs, integers and so on
rather than text content its less of a clear case.
No, I understand and don't disagree. However,
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Another nit: as far as I can tell, all of the common parts of the
interfaces are named Foo, the synchronous API portion is FooSync, and the
async API portion is
