On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:11 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
1. Explicitly undefine this case.
That would not be my preference.
2. Spec IE9, Firefox13 and Opera12alpha's behavior
Roughly speaking, the choice is an invalid token or '|' whichever comes
first, but
On 2012-06-18 04:29, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Consider how this is parsed in a depth-first recursive descent parser:
a|b +,
1) The identifier a is scanned. This might be a tag name or a
namespace; look at the next token.
2) The symbol '|' is scanned. Great. a was a namespace. Resolve
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're going to review the bits of this document
On 6/14/12 10:11 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Hi,
I have updated the specification for Selectors API Level 1, which is
currently in CR.
Most of it was editorial in nature, to bring it in line with Selectors
API Level 2, except without adding any of the new features like
findAll() or or
On 2012-06-18 13:57, Arthur Barstow wrote:
In the process, I also made a few minor editorial changes to v2 just
to tidy it up.
At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or
possibly move it up to PR.
I like the changes Lachlan, especially the new section 6.4.
Although I
On 6/18/12 8:34 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2012-06-18 13:57, Arthur Barstow wrote:
In the process, I also made a few minor editorial changes to v2 just
to tidy it up.
At this stage, we should be able to publish v1 as a revised CR, or
possibly move it up to PR.
I like the changes Lachlan,
Lachlan would like to publish a new Working Draft of the Selectors API
Level 2 spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so using the
following Editor's Draft as the basis
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
Lachlan has made some changes to the Selectors API Level 1 spec (last
published as a CR) and we consider the changes sufficient to require the
spec be published as a Working Draft (see the [1] thread). As such, this
is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD of this spec using the
following
So http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/ introduces the methods
find() and findAll() in addition to querySelector() and querySelectorAll()
and changes the scoping behavior for the former methods to match what
people expect them to do.
I'm not convinced that doubling the API surface
(12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote:
I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to not
Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it does). To
find out whether it Breaks the Web (and the breakage can't be evanged),
I suggest we ship the
-Original Message-
From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu [mailto:kennyl...@csail.mit.edu]
(12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote:
I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to
not Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it
does). To find out whether
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Lachlan would like to publish a new Working Draft of the Selectors API Level 2
spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so using the following Editor's
Draft as
the basis http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/.
Positive
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17538
Summary: [IndexedDB] Remove error clauses for invalid index
keys
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Sorry, looks like I accidentally dropped webapps from the CC list. Sending
again...
On 06/01/2012 05:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
Though it seems likely that 'fixed' is required here, no?
The top layer concept
On 06/18/2012 04:09 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're
15 matches
Mail list logo
