I'm also a little confused. There was a recent announcement [1] from the
WHATWG that the version number was being dropped from HTML 5. This has been
reported elsewhere, usually directly referring back to the WHATWG
announcement [2].
Obviously this doesn't seem to fit with the smacking great 5 in
It appears the Editor Drafts of the December 2009 Last Call Working
Drafts of Sever-sent Events, Web Workers and Web Storage, have changed
enough such that their next publication is a new Working Draft (not a
Candidate Recommendation). As such, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC)
to publish new
I would like to submit to you a possible addition to the DOM specification
based on discoveries I made while developing a new protocol named XRDOM.
Revision: Added that all Attr nodes of decedent nodes are carried to their
new location.
The addition is a method named takeChildNodes which should
I would like to submit to you a possible addition to the DOM specification
based on discoveries I made while developing a new protocol named XRDOM.
The addition is a method named takeChildNodes which should be added to the
Node interface. This method makes it more possible to easily move data
Ian has, for quite some tine, described his whatwg document as HTML Next, a
'living' standard.
This is separate from the w3c procedures, where HTML5 will be codified.
As for web apps: I think it's too early to include them. I'd like to see more
standardization on elevating permissions.
Hi,
takeChildNodes() could be useful in some cases, but
it is already easy to achieve the same without any loops.
Something like:
var r = document.createRange();
r.selectNodeContents(originalParent);
destinationParent.appendChild(r.extractContents());
So since it is already easy to move a group
On 1/23/11 6:31 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Ian has, for quite some tine, described his whatwg document as HTML
Next, a 'living' standard.
Yes, we did the same with W3C Widgets. We dropped versioning and
(unsuccessfully) requested the W3C to change its process to allow the
latest version to
On Jan 22, 2011, at 01:04 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
Putting family photos in a directory and giving a webpage access to it
isn't the same as putting them on a publically-accessible webserver.
How so?
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11615
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 01:04 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
Putting family photos in a directory and giving a webpage access to it
isn't the same as putting them on a publically-accessible webserver.
How so?
One makes them
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:27:56 +0100, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 01:04 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
Putting family photos in a directory and giving a webpage access to it
isn't the same as putting
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com
wrote:
Not in my experience. People put them somewhere on facebook.com or
skype.com
or something, which makes them accessible through a very small number of
single webpages. And often without loggin in, those are not
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
I wanted to point out that many of these use cases are covered adequately
by document.focus()/document.blur(), which is what we currently use in Gmail
to decide whether to mark the user as away, decide whether to display
13 matches
Mail list logo
