On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:34 PM, wrote:
>> That said, it is theoretically possible. But that seems to be true for
>> *any* normative change of a spec.
>
> Right. That's why normative changes require returning to Last Call. :(
My understanding is that W3C policy is that LC is only required for
lar
06.10.2014, 09:19, "Jonas Sicking" :
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM, wrote:
>> So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent
>> review, and my quick guess is that the answer is "yes" ;(
>
> Really? I would have made the opposite conclusion. Changing the event
> sour
Yes, that would be great!!
From: Piotr Koszuliński [mailto:p.koszulin...@cksource.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:20 AM
To: Ben Peters
Cc: public-editing...@w3.org; public-indie...@w3.org; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [Editing] Tracking Issues in GitHub
Hey,
On the Extensible Web Summit i
> On 2014-10-06, at 18:24, James M. Greene wrote:
> This only thing about this approach that is slightly inconsistent with the
> rest of the Web Platform is assuming that the `this` context within the
> handler will be set to the element, rather than being forced to grab it via
> `event.target`
I admittedly haven't been following the Custom Elements spec, so forgive if
my point of view has already been discussed and rejected but... I
definitely agree that this naming seems very inconsistent with the rest of
the Web Platform.
I would have expected to have these handlers configured via
`ad
I feel like they are more like Lifecycle Hooks or Lifecycle Phases... So
naming would make more sense as createdPhase or createdHook
- Matthew Robb
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jarek Foksa wrote:
>
> > On 2014-10-06, at 12:32, Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁)
> wrote:
> >
> > What I learned from p
> On 2014-10-06, at 12:32, Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁) wrote:
>
> What I learned from people around me is that these names have "Callback"
> suffixes because
> - to indicate that it is for a callback function and not a callable API
> - it is low-level API and had to use non-trivial name
>
> So eve
Very cool work Hallvord! This is exactly the kind of stuff that we need more of
for today's specs, IMO.
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Anne van Kesteren
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen
> wrote:
>> If you do try this on xh
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Anne van Kesteren
> Constructing an object as a means of opening a new window seems really weird.
> Is that the pattern common JavaScript widget libraries adopt?
Says the creator of `new Notification({...})` ;)
But
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
> If you do try this on xhr.spec.whatwg.org, you'll see that quite a lot of the
> meta data is still valid - it does add plenty of spec links, while warning in
> the console about the entries that need updating to match this version of
[ + public-webapps ]
On 8/15/14 5:22 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Folks,
we've been looking at improving our publication workflow and came up
with a proposal that is relatively simple and is implementable in a
short amount of time. I really hope that folks will love the automatic
WD publicati
>> Please test and comment :)
> The main problem I have is that this specification is increasingly
> out-of-date with work I've done.
The meta data is certainly outdated compared to your work. The tests themselves
hopefully aren't - I mean, you've been tightening the specs to be more precise
an
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
> Please test and comment :)
The main problem I have is that this specification is increasingly
out-of-date with work I've done. In particular, defining everything in
terms of Fetch which will automatically bring improvements to Fetch
ba
Hi,
partly quoting myself from
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1272 :
Nearly all tests in the XHR test suite have (potentially outdated) meta data
linking them to specific assertations in the spec. (Technically this is a set
of space-separated XPath expressions for each link @rel
Hi Jarek,
What I learned from people around me is that these names have "Callback"
suffixes because
- to indicate that it is for a callback function and not a callable API
- it is low-level API and had to use non-trivial name
So even it doesn't seem to add any information, the suffix has some mea
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
> We have something similar in FirefoxOS per-app window:
> window.open(url, "", "dialog");
>
> We also have the so called "attention" screen, that requires a special
> permission and is on top of everything (e.g. for alarm clocks and
> incomin
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM, John Mellor wrote:
> API-wise, you probably know that the ServiceWorkerClient interface lets a SW
> focus existing same-origin tabs or open new ones (by constructing a client;
> perhaps confusingly).
Constructing an object as a means of opening a new window seems r
On 02.10.2014 21:34, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM, John Mellor wrote:
>>> This seems to either require a somewhat stronger trust signal from the user,
>>> or a very easy mechanism for revoking the permission if
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM, wrote:
> So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent
> review, and my quick guess is that the answer is "yes" ;(
Really? I would have made the opposite conclusion. Changing the event
source makes a very small difference in behavior. I w
19 matches
Mail list logo
