(Previously send to public-script-coord but I was asked to forward to
webapps.)
Hi,
Two things to be aware of if we drop the feature:
One, BONDI folks were using IDL modules, IIRC. Although I think their
spec stabilised well before now, so presumably they’re dependent on an
earlier WD of
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
Re Rob:
Is there a need to provide mouse-locking on a per-element basis? It seems
to
me it would be enough for mouse-locking to be per-DOM-window (or
per-DOM-document) and deliver events to the focused element. This
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13763
Summary: The WebSocket API should provide a polling mechanism
too. Only event based capture messages is not good
because if a method in a JS-Class send a message the
reply
Reminder: August 23 is the comment deadline for the 12-July-2011 Last
Call Working Draft of Web IDL:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-WebIDL-20110712/
Original Message
Subject:RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline August 23
Resent-Date:Tue, 12 Jul 2011
On 8/10/11 6:02 PM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's
necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding
the DOM 2 View specification.
Instead, PLH and I support Anne's original proposal to simply update
the status
Hi Paddy,
If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g.
browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer
comply with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?
If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL
extension?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Paddy,
If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g.
browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer comply
with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?
I don't
On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:18 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne, Ms2ger, All,
Anne and others proposed in [Proposal] the DOM 2 View Recommendation
[D2V] be rescinded. The rescinding process is defined in the Process
Document [Rescind]. However, Ian Jacobs just indicated in IRC
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Anne, Ms2ger, All - can you live with adding a note to D2V rather than going
down the rescind path?
I'm fine with having prominent notices in obsolescent standards
pointing readers to the up-to-date work. If
I don't believe the concern is about changes to Web IDL breaking any running
code (is that possible in any case? Web IDL is just a specification
language...).
But it could break specifications (affect them in a way that does impact
the code which implements them). Future versions of a spec that
On 8/12/11 12:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 02:13:20 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming data.
Before we add yet another set of features,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
If your implementation had to warp the mouse cursor on Windows to get
accurate delta information, the mouse position in the existing mouse
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
If your implementation had to warp the mouse cursor on Windows to
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
If we expose delta information in all mouse events, which seems like
it
Marcos,
So OK, if we just remove the module keyword from the
accelerometerhttp://specs.wacapps.net/2.0/jun2011/deviceapis/accelerometer.html
definition, you're saying that will have no effect upon any aspect of the
implementation of the accelerometer API?
In terms of the need for the module
Since advance is intended to always move the cursor forward, it seems we want
to only support positive parameter values. Therefore, I would suggest we
change its signature to:
void advance (in unsigned int count);
If a developer specifies a negative number for it, we could throw an
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Since advance is intended to always move the cursor forward, it seems we want
to only support positive parameter values. Therefore, I would suggest we
change its signature to:
void advance (in unsigned int count);
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
And if the user doesn't approve the lock you do what? Not let them
play your game?
Maybe. It really is impossible to play a game with a control scheme
based on WASD+mouselook if you can't get a lock.
Alternately, you can
Hi,,
If modules are removed from the Web IDL spec, what running code e.g.
browsers, web/widget runtimes, IDEs, test cases, etc. will no longer comply
with the spec (looking for real breakages here)?
If WAC needs that type of functionality, could they define their own IDL
extension?
Of
Hi,
E.g., The Accelerometer API and just remove module from the title
and from the WebIDL. I don't think any spec in WAC references any
other IDL in another module in the way that WebIDL defines... so there
would be no impact.
WAC does refer to interfaces defined in one module from another
Assuming that we've created an object store with the auto-increment flag set to
true, what is the expected behavior when we reach some type of max
auto-increment value? Do we want to recycle and start again from zero or do we
stop at the largest number and allow duplicates which will generate
On 13/08/11 10:49 AM, Paddy Byers wrote:
WAC does refer to interfaces defined in one module from another module;
however, we have not been using scoped names for these references - we
use the unqualified interface name. More or less every WAC module does this.
If WAC is already considering
On Friday, August 12, 2011, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Assuming that we've created an object store with the auto-increment flag
set to true, what is the expected behavior when we reach some type of max
auto-increment value? Do we want to recycle and start again from zero or do
On Friday, August 12, 2011 3:17 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Since advance is intended to always move the cursor forward, it seems we
want to only support positive parameter values. Therefore, I would suggest
we change
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jonas, sorry about the late reply - comments inline:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
Firefox 6 is going to add support for the the new responseType and
response
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13763
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
BTW, draft spec currently states, When mouse lock is enabled clientX,
clientY, screenX, and screenY must hold constant values as if the mouse were
located at the center of the mouse lock target element I chose this to
29 matches
Mail list logo
