On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, at 10:45, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now
obsolete), the V2 stuff is already widely supported and heavily relied on
by browser vendors. IMO, it's
On 23/06/2014 20:33 , Johannes Wilm wrote:
I filed bugs on this on both Firefox and Chrome in spring 2013. It was
briefly fixed in Chrome, but the fix was then retracted and we never
heard any more of it. It was also reported in Firefox by someone else in
2011. [1]
I also had some contact with
On 24/06/2014 00:38 , Ben Peters wrote:
Also, if the browser includes a bold command by default and I
don't support bolding and therefore cancel the event, the user who
has been relying on the native UI is getting the worst possible
experience: native controls that do nothing at all.
This
On 23/06/2014 18:25 , Julie Parent wrote:
Well stated. I like contentEditable=cursor.
Works for me. Should I just scare up a draft? It is likely to be a
pretty short spec :)
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25311
Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
On 6/23/14 4:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
We have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd
Edition that I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Hi Glenn, All,
I don't have any new info re v1 beyond what Boris said a
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25329
Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:11:23 +0600, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, at 10:45, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now
obsolete), the V2 stuff is
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:05:55 +0100, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
The plan is based on an editor who is provided by Mozilla, but who is very
often
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
snip
From discussions I've had in the past on this topic, it's not so much that
browser-folks don't want to fix this. The problem is more that 1) this is
hard, so fixing can often only happen if someone really owns the problem
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26181
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 6/24/14, 6:56 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
While nobody is offering an editor who can get the work
done, this argument is in any case academic (unless the editor's
availability is predicated on the outcome, in which case it would be mere
political machinations).
I strongly disagree
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 23/06/2014 20:33 , Johannes Wilm wrote:
I filed bugs on this on both Firefox and Chrome in spring 2013. It was
briefly fixed in Chrome, but the fix was then retracted and we never
heard any more of it. It was also reported
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/24/14, 6:56 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
While nobody is offering an editor who can get the work
done, this argument is in any case academic (unless the editor's
availability is predicated on the outcome, in
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
So this is not about actual spec implementations or spec authors but
effectively about a QA cycle that compares the
FYI.
Original Message
Subject:Fwd: [Webpush] Proposed charter
Resent-Date:Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:37:30 +
Resent-From:www-...@w3.org
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:37:24 +0100
From: Daniel Appelquist appelqu...@gmail.com
To: TAG List www-...@w3.org
FYI -
This is a PSA regarding the publication of a LCWD of the Beacon API:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-beacon-20140624/
WebApps wasn't specifically asked to review the LCWD but I wanted to
mention it since this spec was previously discussed in this group. If
you have any comments, please send
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
So this is not about actual spec
On 6/24/14, 1:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
The primary goal of the W3C is to produce Technical Reports that reach a
stable level of maturity.
The Technical Reports are not an end in themselves. They're a means to
an end. This is why we don't produce Technical Reports that just say
do whatever
-Original Message-
On 23/06/2014 18:25 , Julie Parent wrote:
Well stated. I like contentEditable=cursor.
Works for me. Should I just scare up a draft? It is likely to be a pretty
short
spec :)
I'm really looking forward to getting things sorted out! But I think we may
want
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
The primary goal of the W3C is to produce Technical Reports that reach a
stable level of maturity.
The Technical Reports are not an end in themselves. They're a means to an
On June 24, 2014 at 2:33:41 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
They are. By having me test IDL features, by having me report
them to Cameron, by having me participate in this WG. Are you asking
if they can supply an editor? That would best be handled by having
the chairs issue
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
On June 24, 2014 at 2:33:41 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
They are. By having me test IDL features, by having me report
them to Cameron, by having me participate in this WG. Are you asking
if they can supply
On 24/06/14 20:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 6/23/14 4:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
We have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd
Edition that I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Hi Glenn, All,
I don't have any
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
On 24/06/14 20:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 6/23/14 4:04 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC?
We have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd
And also, I'd note that the general rough consensus from Google is that
/TR/ tend to be far less valuable than TRs in flight, so to speak.
Although I'm personally understanding of the need to checkpoint and have
firm targets for precisely the reason Glenn mentions, I'd point out that
the current
On 25/06/14 09:02, Arthur Barstow wrote:
OK, thanks for the update Cameron. Would you please remind us how the v1
bugs are designated at such?
With [v1] in the status whiteboard field of the bug. (There's still a
bunch of list email I need to go through and file bugs for so the list
will
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 6/24/14, 1:05 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
Such device certification regimes cannot work unless the referenced
specifications are locked down and clearly implementable.
I see.
So this is not about actual spec implementations or spec authors but
The Clipboard API spec has a section on Mandatory Data Types [1]. It
says The implementation must recognise the native OS clipboard format
description for the following data types, and contains a list of 14
mime types. Most of them have clear purposes, but a few seem arbitrary
to me. Since I
29 matches
Mail list logo
