On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 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
(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 gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Glenn Adams gl
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source specification,
given that you know that this is a contentious subject in this WG.
Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:15 AM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Dear Tab Atkins Jr. ,
The Device APIs Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on
the
Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ambient
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to this
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alan Stearns stea...@adobe.com wrote:
On 10/18/12 2:51 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 10/19
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Pablo Garaizar Sagarminaga
garai...@deusto.es wrote:
Hello,
on Fri, 25 May 2012 16:49:25 -0700 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
This is not yet an official last call, but if you'd like to re-read
the spec and provide additional feedback--this is
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
IndexedDB supports binary values as per the structured clone algorithm
as implemented in Chrome and Firefox.
IndexedDB needs to support binary keys (ArrayBuffer, TypedArrays).
Many popular KV stores accept binary keys
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/14/12 7:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
A tricky bit: you need to know which element to sync to, so the browser
knows which monitor's vsync to use. According to [1] only WebKit's
requestAnimationFrame actually takes an
Also note that however painful an API change may seem now, it will only get
more painful the longer it is put off.
- James
On Feb 27, 2012 7:50 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
I agree on the values. +1
--
Sent from my N9, excuse the top posting
On 27.02.12 16:17 Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Currently, we can asynchronously use BlobBuilder with FileReader to get an
array buffer from a string.
We can of course, use code to convert String.fromCharCode into a
Uint8Array, but it's ugly.
The StringEncoding
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Martin Kadlec bs-ha...@myopera.comwrote:
Hello everyone,
I've noticed that the find/findAll methods are currently being discussed
and there is one thing that might be a good idea to consider.
Currently, it's quite uncomfortable to use XPath in javascript.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Cheng dch...@chromium.org wrote:
For technical reasons, animating the drag image is non-trivial and not
likely to be implemented in the near future, if it is ever implemented.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.comwrote:
We are talking about it at IETF81 this week.
That said, I think either way browsers should not require deflate-stream. I
am hoping we can make forward progress on deflate-application-data (
protocol. That said, I think a lot of people would be happier if
deflate-stream were an independent document as opposed to being the only
extension included in the core specification as a known extension.
-Ian
2011/7/27 James Robinson jam...@google.com
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Ian Fette
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:14 AM, James Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
mailto:o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:14 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
No browser updates the rendering after invoking every single task, but
I'm
pretty sure that no modern browser updates the rendering at any
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.comwrote:
It seems like these are rarified enough cases that visual artifacts
are
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, David Flanagan dflana...@mozilla.comwrote:
This is actually a pretty hard problem to solve, and still wouldn't really
solve the performance issues for DOM events
Still better than current DOM Mutation event, though right? Are you saying
that synchronous
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the spec
as
currently written and have explicitly said that they have no plans
That text requires the storage mutex, which has not and will not be
implemented by any vendors, let alone 2 interoperable implementations, so it
seems rather doomed.
- James
On Jun 16, 2011 8:58 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote:
Art wrote:
All - given that addressing 12111 is a low
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
On Jun/10/2011 3:05 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Sure, that would be much more efficient. And I agree with others on that
thread that the API should be non-blocking, non-failing, i.e. akin to Linux
/dev/urandom.
But my more important point was the second API:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 05/13/2011 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/13/11 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It *does* however call for a readystatechange event to be
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:24:38 +0100, Web Applications Working Group Issue
Tracker sysbot+trac...@w3.org sysbot%2btrac...@w3.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
Before I write it out it would be nice to assess whether there is consensus
on this. From the current draft, asBlob, responseBlob, and
responseArrayBuffer are removed. response and responseType are added.
responseType
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 11/17/10 5:22 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
Think about this some more. the point if the previous suggestion is
that updating keeping a JS animation in sync with a CSS animation has
nothing to do with painting or
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Flanagan da...@davidflanagan.comwrote:
Is this a fair summary of this thread?
Chris (Apple) worries that having to support both responseText and
responseArrayBuffer will be memory inefficient because implementations will
end up with both representations
I think a good rule for any web API is that the user's needs come before the
author's needs. In this case there is a very large amount of content out
there today that uses XMLHttpRequest to download data, sometimes significant
amounts of data, and that use .responseText exclusively to access that
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 10/28/10 9:11 PM, James Robinson wrote:
I think a good rule for any web API is that the user's needs come before
the author's needs.
And the author's before the implementor's, right?
OK, let's take that as given
One issue raised briefly when discussing ArrayBuffer integration but not
resolved was how to handle overrideMimeType(). The issue is whether calling
overrideMimeType() can cause already downloaded data to be re-interpreted
with a different charset. From my reading of the spec, this is the case.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/28/10 10:32 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
I'd hate the idea of another flag in XHR. Why not just keep the raw bits
and then convert when responseText is called? The only disadvantage of this
is when the author makes
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Jian Li jia...@chromium.org wrote:
According to the spec, we will dispatch a progress event for a read
method.
But per the Progress Events 1.0 spec, the attributes loaded and
total
are
of performance
issues), and ideally how much JS parsing and SSL handshakes add to the
load
time. This would give website owners tremendously valuable data is
currently
impossible to reliably track.
Lenny Rachitsky
Webmetrics
James Robinson-5 wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zhiheng
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zhiheng Wang zhihe...@google.com wrote:
Hi, Olli,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 1/27/10 9:39 AM, Zhiheng Wang wrote:
Folks,
Thanks to the much feedback from various developers, the WebTiming
specs has
Why not create a new XMLHttpRequest object for each request?
- James
On Jan 29, 2010 5:31 AM, Pedro Santos pedros...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, how interest is for you develop new APIs in order to enable a reuse of
the XMLHttpRequest objects, without the need to call abort method?
--
Pedro Henrique
36 matches
Mail list logo
