On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:01:51 +0100, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Rich,
On Nov 10, 2011, at 16:27 , Rich Tibbett wrote:
Opera would like to explore Local Device and Local Network Discovery as
a subset of Web Intents.
Yes, and that desire has been heard. As discussed last week,
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:34:50 +0100, Dave Raggett d...@w3.org wrote:
On 12/11/11 11:42, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
* The UI web page should be able to handle devices appearing and
disappearing at random times and be notified of such via events. Is
this
possible?
I'm wondering if tḧis is
On Nov 11, 2011, at 18:14 , Clarke Stevens wrote:
When can we get the TF tools set up so we can move these conversations to
the official forum?
Given the useful conversation that we immediately jumped into, I'm considering
that we have consensus to move ahead. I'm working with the W3C team to
As sa note, that document is in violation of
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
The working language of the W3C is US English. The official version of a W3C
document is the US English language version at the W3C site.
So I fully expect it to change.
On 11/14/11, Giuseppe Pascale
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:30:28 +0100, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
As sa note, that document is in violation of
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
The working language of the W3C is US English. The official version of
a W3C document is the US English language version at the W3C
What is the exact problem with this document ?
Best regards
JC
On 14/11/11 13:56 , Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:30:28 +0100, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
As sa note, that document is in violation of
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
The working language of the
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:53:29 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
If we change this it makes sense to change withCredentials and timeout
too I
would say.
Agreed.
I forgot that timeout you could set at any
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:03:53 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
I think we should strongly encourage web devs to move away from
sync XHR (in Window context, not in Workers). It is bad for UI
responsiveness.
Unfortunately sync XHR has been used quite often with the old
text/xml
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:07:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As has been pointed out, you can use
Element.matchesSelector(:lang('en-us')) or XPath to test if a node
has a given language. However neither lets you actually *get* the
language of a node, just check if it matches a
On Nov 12, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com
wrote:
On Nov 12, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 11/13/11 6:10 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I think you're
On Sunday, November 13, 2011, Shawn Wilsher m...@shawnwilsher.com wrote:
On 10/23/2011 3:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Good catch! This definitely needs to be specified in the spec.
I have a weak preference for using 1. This has a smaller risk of
triggering edge cases in the client code since
On Nov 14, 2011, at 16:43 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:07:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As has been pointed out, you can use
Element.matchesSelector(:lang('en-us')) or XPath to test if a node
has a given language. However neither lets you actually *get*
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
What about setRequestHeader()?
This one is trickier. I would be more concerned about compatibility
given that the function has been around forever and has always applied
only to the current request.
Additionally,
I would like to point out that there could be other specifications out in
the wild referencing XHR 1.
This doesn't mean that you should not drop XHR 1, but would be good if the
WG prepares a (short) note that gives the background around this decision
and few info about the XHR 2 work, how
On Monday, November 14, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
I would like to point out that there could be other specifications out in
the wild referencing XHR 1.
This doesn't mean that you should not drop XHR 1, but would be good if the
WG prepares a (short) note that gives the
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:19:37 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
Better yet, dump the 2 version number and just have /XMLHttpRequest2/
point to /XMLHttpRequest/.
Everything in 1 is in 2, so making a big deal out of this is a valuable
waste of time justifying the decision.
There
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:31:55 +0100, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:19:37 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com
wrote:
Better yet, dump the 2 version number and just have /XMLHttpRequest2/
point to /XMLHttpRequest/.
Everything in 1 is in 2, so making a
[snip]
ES5.1 clause 8.6.2 says:
The value of the [[Class]] internal property of a host object
may be any String value except one of Arguments, Array,...
In other words, host object provides (such as a DOM implementation) are
not allowed to define new kinds of objects whose
Hi Ashok,
I agree with Tab's comments and wanted to mention some of the related
history ...
The relationships between WebApps' various database related specs has
been discussed before and [DB-wiki] was created to help clarify the
relationships. The good news is there are now 2 specs rather
I don't think it's controversial amongst practitioners that both Web
Storage and IndexedDB are useful and should exist. WebStorage is a very
simple key-value store that is useful for very common, simple cases, while
IndexedDB is a full-on database solution more appropriate for complex cases.
One
It seems as though the spec intends to disallow host objects (i.e. DOM)
from fully acting like an Array, which is clearly the intent here. Perhaps
this is a time for willful disobedience and a correction in ES6?
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Rick Waldron
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
It seems as though the spec intends to disallow host objects (i.e. DOM) from
fully acting like an Array, which is clearly the intent here. Perhaps this is
a time for willful disobedience and a correction in ES6?
Calm down -- this
Sorry,
I was making a joke (referencing 1.5.2 of the HTML5 spec), not intending to
be confrontational.
The underlying issue here is just making it possible for Array.isArray to
return true for an Array of DOM nodes that is also enhanced with extra
features. Jonas had specifically said that he
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Sorry,
I was making a joke (referencing 1.5.2 of the HTML5 spec), not intending to
be confrontational.
Ah, I get it -- indeed such deviations were one of the reasons for creating
public-script-coord.
SO I get it but I didn't lul. :-|
The
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Sorry,
I was making a joke (referencing 1.5.2 of the HTML5 spec), not intending
to be confrontational.
Ah, I get it -- indeed such
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14830
Summary: Specify where index values are gotten from
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
In section
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I don't think we should make up rules for where it makes sense to
insert DOM and where it doesn't. After all, we support .innerHTML on
all HTML elements
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
Sorry,
I was making a joke (referencing 1.5.2 of the HTML5 spec), not intending to
be confrontational.
The underlying issue here is just making it possible for Array.isArray to
return true for an Array of DOM nodes that is also enhanced
On 11/13/11 3:18 PM, Paul Kinlan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 11/10/11 3:10 PM, Greg Billock wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Rich Tibbett ri...@opera.com
mailto:ri...@opera.com wrote:
So, to make things difficult again -- how do we monitor progress?
When I'm saving to the cloud, I want my XHR onprogress.
I don't need high-fidelity progress events -- they don't even make sense
when one server is copying to another,
but I do need something, otherwise we're back in the dark
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 6:12 PM
For right now, there are two ways you could quickly go that don't conflict
with ES5.1 at all:
1) you can specify that .findAll returns a plain vanilla ECMAScript Array
object.
2) you can define
32 matches
Mail list logo
