On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
On 1/23/14 8:48 PM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I understand your concern. Indeed, we editors should have made it clearer
providing updates on the status and more importantly a new TR.
The goal of the snapshot version
Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for
ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an
unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37
This sounds great. It would be cool if editors ping the relevant list as
working drafts get updated, just so everyone can use the lists as an ambient
feed of what's going on. But an actual CFC process seems unnecessary.
From: Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
For specs that are passed FPWD, and thus where consensus to publish there
has been reached, this sounds like a good idea.
Though it might also be good to enable anyone to raise concerns about a
spec such that automatic WDs aren't published until concensus is reached
again.
/ Jonas
On Jan 27,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:18 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
Hi Art,
I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring
CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they
seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
As HTML imports [1] are implemented across browsers, there’s a potential
for diversity of opinion in how rendering of documents with imports occurs.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
3On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr
(mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23147
Arun a...@mozilla.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
As HTML imports [1] are implemented across browsers, there’s a potential
for
Thanks for all the comments. I've updated the WD of XMLHttpRequest Level 1
as such:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/xhr-1/TR/Overview.html
This version (Level 1) reflects all the up-to-date features in WHATWG
version except:
- The URLSearchParams type in send() method.
- The
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23719
Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23975
Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23977
Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24421
Bug ID: 24421
Summary: [Shadow]: Clarify that Shadow DOM spec takes care of
nodes which are *inDocument*.
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
14 matches
Mail list logo
