http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14180
Summary: Call onclose() passing as argument the WS close frame
status and status code and reason
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
[ + public-webapps ]
Original Message
Subject: [widgets] Status of Packing, DigSig and view-modes Proposed
Recommendations
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:58:24 -0400
From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: Marcos Caceres marcoscace...@gmail.com, Doug Schepers
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14180
Iñaki Baz Castillo i...@aliax.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hi Marcos,
Le samedi 03 septembre 2011 à 22:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
[sorry for the delay in responding]
Thank you for continuing to keep the document up to date. This document is
very helpful.
Thanks!
I have request: can you please ungroup Widgets and HTML's
ApplicationCache?
Marcos, All,
To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
Working Group Notes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
If anyone has any comments or objections to
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Marcos, All,
To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
Working Group Notes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/
Hi Dom,
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 19:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Le samedi 03 septembre 2011 à 22:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
[sorry for the delay in responding]
Thank you for continuing to keep the document up to date. This document is
very
Le vendredi 16 septembre 2011 à 21:36 +0700, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I think they are actually not so different, and share many use cases.
Ok, I strongly object in the strongest of terms to them being put together
and I'm more than happy to debate any argument you might have for lumping
I'm also in favor of removing this. This does more harm than good.
Unfortunately I found ~200 uses of this in code search.
http://www.google.com/codesearch#search/q=%5C.isSameNode%5C(%20lang:javascripttype=cs
erik
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 00:33, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On 16 Sep 2011, at 13:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
IMO, keeping them together will lead to confusion. The use cases are
different: a widget can embed content that uses ApplicationCache, as
well as load in proprietary APIs (e.g., WAC).
Surely a Web-applicationcached app could also
On 9/16/11 8:00 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le vendredi 16 septembre 2011 à 21:36 +0700, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I think they are actually not so different, and share many use cases.
Ok, I strongly object in the strongest of terms to them being put together and
I'm more than happy
On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text editing as
a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG editing
specification is now the -only- supported solution for developers to author
editing environments.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Yes, you have a public domain document, and yes, you're likely in the same
boat as Tab Atkins:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1265.html
The editor is the *lowest* level in the hierarchy of
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
I don't think it's malicious. But, Google has unprecedented control over
these W3C specs.
They are absolutely using that control to benefit their priorities.
Google has exercised no control over my spec. I've written it
Hi All,
This thread has taken a few twists and turns and is now relatively far
from Aryeh's original question of Does anyone object to public-webapps
being used to discuss the HTML Editing spec?. I will start a separate
RfC or CfC on that specific question.
In the meantime, if you want to
Hi, Charles-
I understand that it is frustrating to butt heads with a set of people
who all share similar perspective and priorities, if you do not share
those particular views.
However, I don't think it's productive to impute that a specific company
is pushing their agenda, or blocking
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Sean Hogan shogu...@westnet.com.au wrote:
On 10/09/11 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Sean Hoganshogu...@westnet.com.au
wrote:
On 10/09/11 3:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It's a completely useless function. It just implements
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14068
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Apologies to Tab and Aryeh,
I did not mean to suggest that they, nor their employer, have any bad
intent in the specs process.
I have no doubt, that they have the best of intentions.
-Charles
On 9/16/11 12:06 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Charles-
I understand that it is frustrating to
There appears to be a minor edge case in the IndexedDB draft (
http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB) - and inconsistencies between
implementations - for the ECMAScript negative zero number value. While the
other numeric edge cases - NaN and +/-Infinity - are called out explicitly
in the draft when
On Friday, September 16, 2011, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
There appears to be a minor edge case in the IndexedDB draft (
http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB) - and inconsistencies between
implementations - for the ECMAScript negative zero number value. While the
other numeric edge cases -
21 matches
Mail list logo
