Re: Selection of a document that doesn't have a window

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:58:58 +0100, Aryeh Gregor wrote: What does document.implementation.createHTMLDocument("").getSelection() return? * IE9 returns a Selection object unique to that document. * Firefox 12.0a1 and Opera Next 12.00 alpha return the same thing as document.getSelection(). * Ch

[Bug 14985] Specify how autoincrement + empty keypath works

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14985 Israel Hilerio [MSFT] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC|

Re: Selection of a document that doesn't have a window

Can you do anything useful with a selection on a document that doesn't have a window? If so, the IE9 behavior makes sense. If not, I prefer the WebKit behavior. For phrasing it, could you define it in terms of document.defaultView? In other words that document.getSelection is just "return document

Re: Pressing Enter in contenteditable: or or ?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: > Probably a stupid question, but one I've always wanted to ask: couldn't we > default to a different, smaller, possibly 0 margin for P when in editable > content? As Markus says: it breaks WYSIWYG. The idea of contenteditable is you c

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On 1/12/2012 10:03 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote: I don't see it being a particularly bad thing if vendors expose more translation encodings. I've only come across one project that would use them. Binary and utf8 handle everything else I've c

Re: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

Milan, It looks like we fundamentally agree on several things: * That we'd like to see the JavaScript Speech API included in the WebApps' charter.* That we believe the wire protocol is best suited for another organization, such as IETF.* That we believe the markup bindings may be excluded. Our o

Re: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

(Sorry if reply got posted twice, my mail app messed up formatting the first time) Milan, It looks like we agree on several things: * That we'd like to see the JavaScript Speech API included in the WebApps' charter. * That we believe the wire protocol is best suited for another organizat

Re: File modification

I don't follow. Either the user always has to poll the Entry to trigger the event, or you never have to. The former defeats the purpose of having an event (optimized by OS change notifications, low-overhead and instantaneous); the latter may not be possible (NFS). You can't have a web API where

Re: File modification

On 1/12/12 12:53 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Kyle Huey > wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard mailto:gl...@zewt.org>> wrote: FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's ev

Re: Selection of a document that doesn't have a window

On 1/12/12 10:58 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: * Firefox 12.0a1 and Opera Next 12.00 alpha return the same thing as document.getSelection(). In Gecko, this is arguably an implementation bug. It returns the selection associated with a particular Window object. Which Window that is depends on how t

Re: File modification

On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Kyle Huey < m...@kylehuey.com > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard < gl...@zewt.org > > > wrote: > > > > FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's > > > even > > > more important if File objects are stored in History or > >

RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

I've made the point a few times now, and would appreciate a response. Why are we preferring to seed WebApps speech with [2] when we already have [3] that represents industry consensus as of a month ago (Google not withstanding)? Proceeding with [2] would almost surely delay the resulting specifica

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell wrote: > >> > T

Re: File modification

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's even more > important if File objects are stored in History or IndexedDB; that it > should be a *shallow* copy, with enough information stored to invalidate it > if the underlyin

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

On Thursday, 12 January 2012 at 12:31, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Glen Shires and some others at Google proposed [1] that WebApps add > Speech API to WebApps' charter and they put forward the Speech > Javascript API Specification [2] as as a starting point. Members of > Mozilla and Nuance have

Re: File modification

You're at the mercy of many types of latency with web apps. For the high-importance notepad case, you're talking about one file. I can poll every second from my web app and back off when the screen is idle, with current code in Chrome. Hooking into OS level file notification would give better r

Re: File modification

That's not good enough for many use cases. For example, a notepad app that saves to disk wants to update the display if another program modifies the file. You don't want that to be delayed until you scan the directory; you want the event pushed at you immediately when it happens. This is how I

Re: File modification

On 1/12/2012 6:34 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: Side-effects of event registration are outside of the DOM event model. UAs can do whatever transparent optimizations they want, of course, but APIs shouldn't *depend* on that for efficient implementations. Occasional polling definitely has signif

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > I don't see it being a particularly bad thing if vendors expose more > translation encodings. I've only come across one project that would use > them. Binary and utf8 handle everything else I've come across, and I can use > them to build

Re: File modification

On 1/12/2012 12:30 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: On 1/11/2012 12:27 PM, Eric U wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell > wrote: > >> > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward beca

Re: File modification

On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Kyle Huey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's even more > important if File objects are stored in History or IndexedDB; that it should > be a *shallow* copy, with enough inf

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell wrote: >> > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it >> > provides correct behavior in all cases. >> >> Do you me

[Bug 15533] Index check in selection.extend() should be done before node type test.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15533 Aryeh Gregor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell wrote: > > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it > > provides correct behavior in all cases. > > Do you mean this one? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding > >

Re: Testing Expectations

On 1/12/12 11:06 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote: Hi, folks- On 1/11/12 9:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 1/10/12 11:25 AM, ext Glen Shires wrote: Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like to see at this point? At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like "if/when the

Re: [editing] tab in an editable area WAS: [whatwg] behavior when typing in contentEditable elements

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> The reason is listed in WCAG2 section 2.1.2 and CR5. >> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ >> >> The items suggest that a standard means of moving focus be maintained. Users >> should be gi

Re: [editing] tab in an editable area WAS: [whatwg] behavior when typing in contentEditable elements

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > The reason is listed in WCAG2 section 2.1.2 and CR5. > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ > > The items suggest that a standard means of moving focus be maintained. Users > should be given simple instructions on how to move focus if the keyboard

Selection of a document that doesn't have a window

What does document.implementation.createHTMLDocument("").getSelection() return? * IE9 returns a Selection object unique to that document. * Firefox 12.0a1 and Opera Next 12.00 alpha return the same thing as document.getSelection(). * Chrome 17 dev returns null. I prefer IE's behavior just for the

Testing Expectations (was: Speech Recognition and Text-to-Speech Javascript API - seeking feedback for eventual standardization)

Hi, folks- On 1/11/12 9:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 1/10/12 11:25 AM, ext Glen Shires wrote: Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like to see at this point? At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like "if/when the spec advances to Candidate Recommendation, we w

[Bug 15532] Collapsing or extending to a ProcessingInstruction should be OK

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15532 Aryeh Gregor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: File modification

FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's even more important if File objects are stored in History or IndexedDB; that it should be a *shallow* copy, with enough information stored to invalidate it if the underlying file changes, doesn't seem to be specified. (As far as I know

Re: File modification

Side-effects of event registration are outside of the DOM event model. UAs can do whatever transparent optimizations they want, of course, but APIs shouldn't *depend* on that for efficient implementations. Occasional polling definitely has significant overhead (directories may have tens of thous

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell wrote: > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it > provides correct behavior in all cases. Do you mean this one? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding I see the following problems after a cursory glance: 1) It doesn't

Re: Pressing Enter in contenteditable: or or ?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:31:26 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > > Actually, applying p {margin:0} looks quite trivial. >>> >> >> The problem is that many existing contents don't have that css rule and >> we obviously don't want to create m

[Bug 15533] New: Index check in selection.extend() should be done before node type test.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15533 Summary: Index check in selection.extend() should be done before node type test. Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Bug 15532] New: Collapsing or extending to a ProcessingInstruction should be OK

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15532 Summary: Collapsing or extending to a ProcessingInstruction should be OK Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: All URL: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-f

CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

Glen Shires and some others at Google proposed [1] that WebApps add Speech API to WebApps' charter and they put forward the Speech Javascript API Specification [2] as as a starting point. Members of Mozilla and Nuance have voiced various levels of support for this proposal. As such, this is a C

Re: File modification

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 1/11/2012 12:27 PM, Eric U wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Charles Pritchard >>  wrote: >>> >>> On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be impossible to imp

Re: Pressing Enter in contenteditable: or or ?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:39:48 +0100, Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: p has default margins. That alone is enough for us not to adopt p as the default paragraph separator. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Simon Pieters wrote: Sure, but some apps like

Re: Pressing Enter in contenteditable: or or ?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:31:26 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: Actually, applying p {margin:0} looks quite trivial. The problem is that many existing contents don't have that css rule and we obviously don't want to create markup like for it is too verbose. Probably a stupid question, but one