Hi there,
The CSS Device Adaption spec has a good method for deciding how to control
the viewport of the main frame.
A good question is how this should relate to subframe and elements going
fullscreen. One way would be to inherit the viewport of the main frame, but
I wonder whether this covers
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13700
Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de, 2012-02-01 12:25 +0100:
On 2012-01-03 13:39, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/29/11 8:48 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
I note that
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Websockets-Comments-LC-29Sep2011
claims this was addressed but it was not.
(In the
[ - public-html ]
WebApp'ers - if there are any objections or non-resolvable conflicts
with WebApps meeting April 10-11 please speak up as soon as possible.
To get at least a rough idea regarding who would attend the meeting, if
there is a relatively high priority you will attend, please let
Hi all,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 17:42 , Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-01 -20, at 14:32, Ian Hickson wrote
Personally I think the idea of installing a Web app is anathema.
You may, but others have a need for it.
This is a hot topic, and I'm happy to see it openly broached here. That said, I
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
I am especially interested in whether Editors and Test
Facilitators/Contributors will attend.
Highly likely I'll attend.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
[-www-tag]
Hi Tim,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 22:04 , Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
I want to argue for XMLHTTPRequest
being designed to be able to be used not only in an untrusted web page,
but e.g. from an installed widget, or node.js for that matter,
which means returning a defined error response when
On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:16 , Scott Wilson wrote:
The issue of 'trusted web applications has also come up before in this
context also, see Robin's blog post:
http://berjon.com/blog/2011/02/harmful-trust.html
Please read that with a pinch of salt. It's my thinking from a year ago, and
quite a
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15927
Summary: [IndexedDB] Allowing . and in keys specified
using keyPath
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi all,
On Feb 1, 2012, at 17:42 , Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-01 -20, at 14:32, Ian Hickson wrote
Personally I think the idea of installing a Web app is anathema.
You may, but others have a need for it.
This is a hot
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
I am especially interested in whether Editors and Test
Facilitators/Contributors will attend.
Highly likely I'll attend.
Me too.
:DG
Pointer lock spec[1] has been updated as I described, with the exception of
allowpointerlock which still needs to be added.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/default/index.html
Feedback welcome.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
The spec for
Folks,
To make Web Components more usable, I would like to consider providing
a way to declare event handlers in markup. As I look over the use
cases and try to implement them using the proposed syntax
(http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html),
a pattern emerges,
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote:
Folks,
To make Web Components more usable, I would like to consider providing
a way to declare event handlers in markup. As I look over the use
cases and try to implement them using the proposed syntax
On 2/7/12 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
div class=overflow
script event=click
// this is the parent div element.
// event is the current event object.
if (event.target.className != 'more')
return;
if (this.moreOpened)
What about conflict with existing specification rules?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-script-element - under #12,
limits the use of event and for attributes to load and window respectively.
Rick
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/7/12 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
div class=overflow
script event=click
// this is the parent div element.
// event is the current event object.
if (event.target.className != 'more')
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Erik Arvidsson a...@google.com wrote:
On Tue Feb 07 11:41:24 GMT-800 2012, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
The pros are:
* It's declarative and intuitively logical
I think this is a cons. Now you need both markup and code where you only had
On 2/7/12 3:25 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Oh, likescript scoped or something?
No opinions on the syntax, or even on whether the element should be
called script.
this.onclick = function() { }
I think. The only thing the UA would have to do there is syntax-check the
function, which
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 06:46:55 +0900, Daniel Cheng dch...@chromium.org
wrote:
There was a recent discussion involving directly exposing the HTML
fragment
in a paste to a page, since we're doing the parsing anyway
On 7/2/12 05:31 , Robin Berjon wrote:
The first problem is that of the security model. A lot of smart people have
tried to come up with a lot of different solutions here, often involving
signatures, policies, intricate user interfaces, etc. I think that's all
massively over-engineered. Once
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
I am especially interested in whether Editors and Test
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
Pointer lock spec[1] has been updated as I described, with the exception of
allowpointerlock which still needs to be added.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/default/index.html
Feedback welcome.
What's the
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
Pointer lock spec[1] has been updated as I described, with the exception
of
allowpointerlock which still needs to be added.
About portrait-landscape auto rotation on current mobile/tablet
browsers/platforms: If a user has auto rotation set on their mobile or
tablet, I know it's possible for a particular native application to
override that setting and stay in whatever screen orientation it wants.
My question is if it
There's no current spec for this, but it's on our plate:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges#Additions_Agreed
--tobie
On 2/8/12 3:06 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
About portrait-landscape auto rotation on current mobile/tablet
browsers/platforms: If a user has auto
Tobie Langel to...@fb.com, 2012-02-08 07:17 +:
There's no current spec for this, but it's on our plate:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges#Additions_Agreed
Thanks for the link and I see that links to mail from Robin a week ago. Now
embarrassed that I'm not caught up on my
In case it's needed; use case:
User is drawing a sketch on their mobile phone and their rotation is
intentional as if they are working with a physical piece of paper.
-Charles
On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
There's no current spec for this, but it's on our
29 matches
Mail list logo
