https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14985
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
On 01/24/2012 01:58 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Ms2ger wrote:
The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we
still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications to hopefully
avoid that people use them as a reference.
If you want to say more than that the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
There's another edge case here - what happens on a put (etc) request to an
object store with a key generator when the object store's key path does not
yield a value, yet the algorithm below exits without changing the value.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Friday, January 20, 2012 2:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Mozilla is fine with removing the special |keyPath:| behavior.
Please note that
Ms2ger,
Last September, some obsolescence text was added to the DOM 2 Views REC:
[[
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Views-20001113/
*Document Status Update 2011-09-22*: This paragraph is informative. The
concepts this document
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:02:55 +0100, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/24/2012 01:58 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Ms2ger wrote:
The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that
we still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications to
hopefully avoid that
On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires gshi...@google.com wrote:
2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaScript APIs.
The XG group consisted of a large
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
Ms2ger,
Last September, some obsolescence text was added to the DOM 2 Views REC:
[[
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-**Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
I work in an industry where devices are certified against final
specifications, some of which are mandated by laws and regulations. The
current DOM-2
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
There's another edge case here - what happens on a put (etc) request to
an
object store with a key generator when the object store's key path does
Hello,
I do understand the objection, but how relevant should it be here? If
some regulation/law dictates that work must follow e.g. DOM 2, than it
does not matter that it's obsolete... The law takes precedence here
regardless of status of the document. Technically in such case one don't
need
Microsoft is open to adding this to the WebApps charter.
We certainly want to see work on a speech API for user agents proceed at W3C.
Our priorities for the API are 1) a procedural (JavaScript) API and 2) a
declarative syntax for speech recognition and text-to-speech in HTML. We think
WebApps
On Monday, January 23, 2012 8:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Israel Hilerio
isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
In looking at the count method in IDBObjectStore and IDBIndex we
noticed that
On 01/24/2012 08:33 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
something like:
DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress).
This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the status
of DOM2 to a work in progress.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
There's another edge case here - what happens on a put (etc) request to
an
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
something like:
DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress).
This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the
status of DOM2 to a work in progress.
I'm sorry, but for some, saying DOM2 (a REC) = DOM4 (a WIP), is the same as
saying DOM2 is a WIP. This is because the former can be read as saying that
the normative content of DOM2 is now replaced with DOM4.
I'm not sure what you mean by [DOM2] is a work on which progress has
stopped. DOM2 is a
Can we just compromise on the language here? I don't think we'll find
agreement on the proper way to do spec work.
How about: DOM2 is no longer updated. DOM4 is the latest actively
maintained version. link to DOM4
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
I'm sorry,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
something like:
DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress).
This addition is tantamount (by the
2012/1/24 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com
The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
something like:
DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress).
This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the
status of DOM2 to a work in progress.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
something like:
DOM2 (a REC) is
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
You keep saying this throughout this thread without pointing to specifics.
It's impossible to argue with broad, sweeping generalizations like this. So
far, you have yet to point to one concrete organization/statute that
I like Glenn's idea of being verbose to avoid ambiguity. It is a
spec---might as well spell out the consequences of the notice. :)
Andres Riofrio
riofr...@gmail.com
2012/1/24 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com
2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
Can we just compromise on the language here? I
On 1/24/12 8:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org mailto:o...@chromium.org
Can we just compromise on the language here? I don't think we'll
find agreement on the proper way to do spec work.
How about: DOM2 is no longer updated. DOM4 is the latest
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
In addition, the index method in IDBObjectStore uses
InvalidStateError to convey two different meanings: the object has
been removed or deleted and the transaction being used finished. It
seems that it would be
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
You keep saying this throughout this thread without pointing to
specifics. It's impossible to argue with broad, sweeping
generalizations like this. So far, you have yet to
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 1/24/12 8:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org mailto:o...@chromium.org
Can we just compromise on the language here? I don't think we'll
find agreement on the proper way to do spec
Ian, I agree with the sentiment of your response (take DOM4 right now and
publish it as a REC). And, were it not for the W3C Process Document, we
might do just that. However, for the time being, we need to work within the
process document. The best way to do that is attempt to (as rapidly as
I think the point that is most important to me to capture is that DOM2
no longer reflects the behavior in many browsers.
So how about:
DOM2 is no longer updated and doesn't in all cases reflect behavior in
popular implementations. DOM4 is the latest actively maintained and
updated version. link
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
Ian, I agree with the sentiment of your response (take DOM4 right now and
publish it as a REC). And, were it not for the W3C Process Document, we
might do just that. However, for the time being, we need to work within the
process document.
Actually,
DOM2 was not created for the purpose of reflecting the behavior in popular
implementations. So it would be misleading to use this rationale. I would
suggest the more neutral language I proposed above:
Although DOM Level 2 continues to be subject to Errata
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
Ian, I agree with the sentiment of your response (take DOM4 right now
and
publish it as a REC). And, were it not for the W3C Process Document, we
might do just that. However, for
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
In addition, the index method in IDBObjectStore uses
InvalidStateError to convey two different meanings: the object has
been removed or deleted and
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
In addition, the index method in IDBObjectStore uses
InvalidStateError to
On Jan 24, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Dan Burnett wrote:
On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires gshi...@google.com wrote:
2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15699
Summary: My phone does nt save when i download
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top
OS/Version:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15699
Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I noticed a test regarding optional parameters on
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/#indexeddb that IE10PP4 and
Chrome 15 are marked as failing and Firefox 8 is marked as passing. (I have
Chrome 18 and FF9 handy - no changes.)
The specific test is IDBDatabase.createObjectStore() -
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
I noticed a test regarding optional parameters
on http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/#indexeddb that IE10PP4
and Chrome 15 are marked as failing and Firefox 8 is marked as passing. (I
have Chrome 18 and FF9
Joshua Bell:
By my reading of the IDB and WebIDL specs, the optionalParameters
parameter is a WebIDL dictionary
(http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/#options-object-concept). The ECMAScript
binding algorithm for WebIDL dictionaries
(http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#es-dictionary) is such that the members
Art, Charles,
We are very pleased to see the positive responses to the CfC.
In particular, we believe this meets all the criteria that Art suggested in
[1].
1. Relatively clear scope of the feature(s)
The scope is well-defined and bounded. [1] [2]
2. Editor commitment(s)
Google and
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org
wrote:
There's
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Based on this (pending details from microsoft of course) I suggest the
* Glenn Adams wrote:
That doesn't really work for me. What would work for me is something like:
Although DOM Level 2 continues to be subject to Errata
Managementhttp://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata,
it is no longer being actively maintained. Content authors and implementers
45 matches
Mail list logo
