Re: File API: reading a Blob

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Aymeric Vitte wrote: > Does your experimentation pipe the XHR stream to MSE? Obviously that > should be the target for yt, this would be a first real application of the > Streams API. > It's not yet updated to use the new Streams. Here's our layout test for MSE.

Re: Web Components: two questions

1) Are form elements (input, select, textarea) inside a shadow dom considered when submitting a form? The Shadow DOM spec doesn't say anything about this. Therefore, form elements should be in the same node tree. For example, suppose a element is in the node tree A. In this case, form

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

It could be worse! After 15 years and a handful of vendor implementations over the years, neither W3C nor WHATWG have simple microphone upload in forms. There's http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/ of course, which has been almost there since around 2007, but still doesn't say what "capture control

Re: [selection] Selection.setBaseAndExtent

Yes. I couldn’t find a publicly available documentation for it. We need to figure out whether there is any compatibility concerns for making them (anchor/focus and base/extent) behave the same if we’re to remove it in WebKit. - R. Niwa On Aug 6, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Ben Peters wrote: > I don’

Re: [admin] Towards making ED boilerplates more useful and consistency

On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Hi Editors, All, >> >> Speaking of ED boilerplate data ... do we want to try to get some >> consistency regarding boilerplate data in our EDs? >> >> We have quite a bit of variation no

Re: Web Components: two questions

On Wed Sep 10 2014 at 8:26:43 PM Ondřej Žára wrote: > Hi, > > unable to seek a qualified answer via IRC or Web/spec, I decided to post > my two beginner questions here. > > 1) Are form elements (input, select, textarea) inside a shadow dom > considered when submitting a form? > > The Shadow DOM s

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On 9/10/14, 6:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: and they do not follow a consensus process. Glenn, with all due respect, neither do many W3C specifications. Case in point is http://www.w3.org/TR/navigation-timing/ which managed to get to REC while ignoring feedback that pointed out that not a single

Re: File API: reading a Blob

Does your experimentation pipe the XHR stream to MSE? Obviously that should be the target for yt, this would be a first real application of the Streams API. Because the Streams API does not define how to apply back pressure to XHR, but does define how to apply back pressure between XHR and MSE

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

(public-webapps and www-tag to bcc, +cc public-w3cproc...@w3.org. sorry about the earlier mistake) On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >>> WHATWG specs are

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. >> > > Do you have a citation to back up this claim? > If it isn't obvious, I am stating my opinion regarding the matter

RE: publishing new WD of URL spec

[public-webapps and www-tag to bcc] Hi Glenn, James, I think as Art carefully reminded us, this is off-topic for www-tag and public-webapps. I hope you will contain further discussions to public-w3process as was requested. From: James Robinson [mailto:jam...@google.com] Sent: Thursday, Septemb

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. > Do you have a citation to back up this claim? > Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus > process. > Do you have citations for where this is listed

Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Domenic Denicola < dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > This is a formal objection to the publication of this specification.

RE: publishing new WD of URL spec

This is a formal objection to the publication of this specification. My arguments against publishing this specification include that copying the spec from the WHATWG is an unnecessarily combative way of working with another standards body, especially with regard to the URL Standard wherein we/th

[Bug 26774] Specification does not distinguish between `IDBObjectStore` `add` and `put`

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26774 Joshua Bell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 26774] New: Specification does not distinguish between `IDBObjectStore` `add` and `put`

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26774 Bug ID: 26774 Summary: Specification does not distinguish between `IDBObjectStore` `add` and `put` Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: All O

Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

On September 10, 2014 at 12:43:02 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote: > [ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication > between WebApps and TAG. ] > > This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to > publish a new WD of the URL spec

Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to publish > a new WD of the URL spec (on or around Sept 16) using this ED as the basis: > > What about the comments raised so far, e.g.: h

PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

[ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication between WebApps and TAG. ] This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to publish a new WD of the URL spec (on or around Sept 16) using this ED as the basis: As previ

[TPAC2014] Reminder: f2f meeting registration deadline is October 8

This is a reminder WebApps will meet on Monday and Tuesday (October 27 and 28) during [TPAC2014]. Registration for WebApps' meeting (as well as all other meetings and events that week) is mandatory. The registration deadline is October 8. The

Web Components: two questions

Hi, unable to seek a qualified answer via IRC or Web/spec, I decided to post my two beginner questions here. 1) Are form elements (input, select, textarea) inside a shadow dom considered when submitting a form? 2) I am having troubles with lifecycle callback of custom elements that are clo