On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:55:37 +0400, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 9/27/12 9:35 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
W3C Advisory Committee members are asked to Please review the
specification and indicate whether you endorse it as W3C Recommendation
or object to its
Boris Zbarsky:
Should WebIDL change here? Should FileAPI change?
Technically, it is not possible to implement File API without also
implementing the URL specification, since if there is a partial
interface URL then there must also be a interface URL in the set of
IDL fragments that you
On 9/28/12 10:18 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:55:37 +0400, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 9/27/12 9:35 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
W3C Advisory Committee members are asked to Please review the
specification and
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15718
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14210
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15684
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17772
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10894
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19114
Summary: (editorial) gopher missing quote
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19114
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On 9/28/12 12:38 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
It seems more important to check for the features of the spec, rather than spec
support in general. I would expect if (URL.createObjectURL) for example.
You have it backwards. That's checking for the file API bits. How do
you check whether you
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18189
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18221
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu]
On 9/28/12 12:38 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
It seems more important to check for the features of the spec, rather
than spec support in general. I would expect if (URL.createObjectURL) for
example.
You have it backwards. That's checking for
Travis Leithead:
I guess you'd check for URL.href then? Or try { new URL(/test); } catch (ex) {
console.log(not supported); }
I agree with Travis, you should be checking the particular features you
want to use, rather than checking the existence of the prototype as a
proxy for that test.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Travis Leithead:
I guess you'd check for URL.href then? Or try { new URL(/test); } catch
(ex) { console.log(not supported); }
I agree with Travis, you should be checking the particular features you
want to use,
I was alluding to this behavior for interface objects (e.g., URL):
4.4.1.1. Interface object [[Call]] method
§http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-interface-call
If the interfacehttp://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-interface is
declared with a
17 matches
Mail list logo