Hi James, Greg, All - in case you did not know, WebApps is having a f2f meeting
May 1-2 in Mountain View (logistical details below).
Given Web Intents is a joint deliverable with WebApps, perhaps it would be
useful to allocate some agenda time for Web Intents e.g. an update on the
status,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Sounds great to me. The ports attribute is basically useless except in
this
one instance since ports are these days expose as part of structured
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Sounds great to me. The ports attribute is basically useless except
Art,
I added the item below to the wiki:
Use cases and requirements for extending Server-Sent Events to support other
bearers / underlying protocols: related to the proposed charter update item
for Server-Sent Events extended to work with other push notification
schemes such as Push SMS.
At the suggestion of my W3C Team colleagues, I have created a new public
mailing list for discussions of potential W3C work on Near Field
Communications. The aim is to consider the scope, use cases and work
items for W3C work on NFC APIs. The mailing list archive is accessible
by anyone.
Email
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Feras Moussa fer...@microsoft.com wrote:
We agree that the spec text should be updated to more clearly define what
dereference means.
When we were trying to solve this problem, we looked for a simple and
consistent way that a developer can understand what
On Mar 30, 2012, at 2:25 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi All - the publication of the File API LC was delayed because of some
logistical issues for Arun as well as some additional edits he intends to
make.
This delay
I'll agree that having to use ports[0] to access the MessagePort in a
connect event has always felt a bit like an API wart. However, I don't
entirely recall why we wanted to have the connect event use the
MessageEvent interface. So I'd be uncomfortable with changing connect event
to not match that
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
To follow up on Jonas' earlier comment, the postMessage/MessageEvent APIs
changed to support object transfers after we defined the connect event
structure, so it's not unreasonable that we should take another look at the
connect event to try to make it match the current definition of
-Original Message-
From: Simon Pieters [mailto:sim...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:27 AM
To: Jarred Nicholls
Cc: Jonas Sicking; public-weba...@w3c.org
Subject: Re: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls
If we can schedule this for May 1, that would be fantastic. Unfortunately
something last-minute has come up and I won't be able to attend May 2.
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
Hi James, Greg, All - in case you did not know, WebApps is
This came up in… 2001 during the W3C QA Workshop which started the W3C QA
activity.
http://www.w3.org/2001/01/qa-ws/agenda.html
Le 26 mars 2012 à 18:43, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
The statement you quoted is more or less accurate. Behavior that
isn't specced is almost certain to not be
Hi All,
We're currently cleaning out some of our error handling code and the
turn has come to XPathException. The DOM4+WebIDL specs has created a
nice set of exceptions which make it easier for authors to check for
specific exceptions. You now only have to check .name (which is a
string) rather
Hello,
I am working on updating the CSS Regions CSSOM APIs
(http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-regions/#cssom_view_and_css_regions). CSS
Regions adds a set of named flows (created by the flow-into property) to
the Document, currently as a collection:
partial interface Document {
readonly attribute
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:30:02 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
We're currently cleaning out some of our error handling code and the
turn has come to XPathException. The DOM4+WebIDL specs has created a
nice set of exceptions which make it easier for authors to check for
specific
On 4/10/12 3:35 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
What is this group's API preference for a set of objects identified by
name?
The real question is what the use cases are, no? The NamedFlowMap
approach doesn't provide a good way to enumerate the named flows; if
that's a use case that needs
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
To follow up on Jonas' earlier comment, the postMessage/MessageEvent APIs
changed to support object transfers after we defined the connect event
structure, so it's not unreasonable that we should take another look at the
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/10/12 3:35 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
What is this group's API preference for a set of objects identified by
name?
The real question is what the use cases are, no? The NamedFlowMap approach
doesn't provide a good way
On 4/10/12 4:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
According to current WebIDL spec, an object with a named property
getter exposes the list of names as own properties, so you can get
them with for-in enumeration.
1) for-in enumeration enumerates prototype properties.
2) for-in enumeration enumerates
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/10/12 4:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
According to current WebIDL spec, an object with a named property
getter exposes the list of names as own properties, so you can get
them with for-in enumeration.
1) for-in
A recent example from Canvas specification.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7030to=7031
p class=noteThis specification does not define the precise
+ algorithm to use when scaling an image when the code
+
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
To follow up on Jonas' earlier comment, the postMessage/MessageEvent APIs
changed to support object transfers after we defined the connect event
On 4/10/12 4:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/10/12 4:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
According to current WebIDL spec, an object with a named property
getter exposes the list of names as own properties, so you can get
them
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/10/12 4:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/10/12 4:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
According to current WebIDL spec, an object with a named property
On 4/10/12 5:05 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Agreed, but ES6 is making this easier with Object.keys() and for-of iteration.
Sort of. for-of doesn't necessarily work on this stuff, as I understand.
(Off the top of my head, I can't come up with a use-case for
enumerating all flows in a page
Le 10 avr. 2012 à 22:25, Karl Dubost a écrit :
A recent example from Canvas specification.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7030to=7031
p class=noteThis specification does not define the precise
+ algorithm to use when scaling an image when the code
+
Hi All,
Our understanding of the current spec is that if someone calls the
send function and pass as the body to be sent, this is almost
equivalent to not passing a body at all. However, it still changes
which Content-Type header is set. Consider the following code:
xhr = new XMLHttpRequest;
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:08:47 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is this intentional?
This does match what Gecko does, but we are willing to change this if
others agree that it's a better behavior.
Yes, the idea is that you can transmit both the empty entity body and no
entity
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:08:47 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Is this intentional?
This does match what Gecko does, but we are willing to change this if
others agree that it's a better behavior.
Yes,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:08:47 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Is this intentional?
This does match what Gecko does, but we are willing
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:08:47 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Is
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is it more surprising than that
xhr.send(hasSomethingToSend() ? getTheThingToSend() : );
sets the Content-Type header even when no body is submitted?
That's exactly what I would expect. A body that happens to have a
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is it more surprising than that
xhr.send(hasSomethingToSend() ? getTheThingToSend() : );
sets the Content-Type header even when no body is submitted?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is it more surprising than that
xhr.send(hasSomethingToSend() ?
On 4/7/12 1:42 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
I kinda' recall there was a proposal in the HTML WG to move the app cache
functionality to a separate spec. Does anyone know the status of that
proposal?
I don't know what the status is, but we'd be highly supportive of such a
split.
On Apr 10, 2012, at 2:28 PM, ext James Hawkins wrote:
If we can schedule this for May 1, that would be fantastic. Unfortunately
something last-minute has come up and I won't be able to attend May 2.
I put Web Intents in the 1:30 to 2:30 slot on Tuesday May 1
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is it
Is there any possibility to attend remotely for specific topics?
Regards,
Silvia.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote:
Dear All,
This is a friendly reminder for folks to register for the upcoming
face-to-face meetings in one month from today:
* Web
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:26:04 +0200, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
IE10 does not implement SharedWorkers at the present time. We also don’t
yet implement the updated Transferrable notion for MessagePorts in the
structured clone algorithm.
Ah, OK.
We do ship Workers
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:33:55 +0200, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
I'll agree that having to use ports[0] to access the MessagePort in a
connect event has always felt a bit like an API wart. However, I don't
entirely recall why we wanted to have the connect event use the
What is the backwards compatibility story for websites already using
SharedWorkers with the interface that has been in the spec for over a year
now?
There are sites using them. For example, Google Docs uses them and Google
Web Toolkit exposes them.
dave
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:44 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
What is the backwards compatibility story for websites already using
SharedWorkers with the interface that has been in the spec for over a year
now?
There are sites using them. For example, Google Docs uses them and Google
44 matches
Mail list logo
