https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24708
Bug ID: 24708
Summary: [Shadow]: Wrong spelling
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.comwrote:
I think Ryosuke's content.add/remove are a better base layer than
content select. In fact, content select is straightforwardly
implementable / explainable on top of MO + content.add/remove, but
there are several use
On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group record
consensus to publish it. However, it's usually helpful if the FPWD
So, the story so far is that the spec has added something it labels
semi-trusted events - that is an event triggered from a trusted event of a
whitelisted type. The precedence here is popup blocking - browsers already have
rules for which events are more trusted than others in terms of likely
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and
whose parent doesn't have a constructor, no need to add them to the
above arrays. Just insert them into their parent. That means that when
that the
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Here's an alternative proposal:
1) The Web developers are already aware of the fact that you can create
new instances of JS objects without running their constructors with
Object.create
These are not the instances
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Erik Arvidsson a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.comwrote:
Here's an alternative proposal:
1) The Web developers are already aware of the fact that you can create
new instances of JS objects without
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.commailto:
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group
On Feb 18, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and
whose parent doesn't have a constructor, no need to add them to the
above arrays.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor, and
whose parent doesn't have a constructor, no need to add them to the
above
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor,
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What I mean is that for nodes that doesn't have a constructor,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24658
Morrita Hajime morr...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
The thing that really bothers me is that this approach is
14 matches
Mail list logo
