TPAC 2016 Registration Now Open

As a reminder, the Web Platform Working Group will meet as follows: [[ 19 September: Web Components. (TPAC 2016, Lisbon, Portugal) 20 September: Service Workers. (TPAC 2016, Lisbon, Portugal) 22 September: Editing and Selection. (TPAC 2016, Lisbon, Portugal) 23 September: HTML, Directory

Re: [Web Components] Editor for Custom Elements

On 04/06/2016 03:34 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] Domenic Denicola briefly stepped into the role, but regretfully he has since declined to work within the W3C community [2]. That is not at all an accurate description of what has happened. I've very

Re: Art steps down - thank you for everything

Thank you Art. You carried out this group and community over so many years. Your first email to the AC was entitled "Just say NO?" as a response to a proposal from W3C. It will take a while for me to realize you won't be standing and come to the microphone to challenge us as you used to do

Notes from Custom Elements meeting

Available at https://www.w3.org/2016/01/25-webapps-minutes.html Text version: Web Platform - Custom Elements 25 Jan 2016 See also: [2]IRC log [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/25-webapps-irc Attendees Present Domenic_Denicola, Takayoshi_Kochi,

[admin] Web Platform WG is really the new WebApps

Hi All, back in October, we started the Web Platform WG [1] and invited folks to join the new Group at the time [Register]. We did not formally closed down the Web Applications Working Group however. This is an advance notice that we are going to close down the Web Applications Working

High Resolution Time 2: time origin and worker support

The latest version of High Resolution Time is ready for wide review. One can find the latest draft at: http://www.w3.org/TR/hr-time-2/ High Resolution Time Level 2 replaces the first version of High Resolution Time [HR-TIME] and includes: * Defines a precise definition of time origin for

Re: Normative references to Workers.

On 09/15/2015 03:26 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. > wrote: ​there's nothing wrong with reffing WHATWG specs. It will not delay ​ or hamper​ publication or Rec-track advancement, despite

URL bugs and next steps

[resending with Anne and public-webapps. I was asked to add both and forgot. Apologizes for the omission] Things haven't been moving at fixing the bugs in the URL specification. Sam has circulated a list of issues but did not receive much feedback. I figured the best way to understand to make

Re: URL bugs and next steps

On 06/16/2015 10:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: Things haven't been moving at fixing the bugs in the URL specification. Sam has circulated a list of issues but did not receive much feedback. I figured the best way

Observers added to Performance

Webperf landed earlier this week a proposal [1] to add observers of performance entries: [[ The |PerformanceObserver| http://w3c.github.io/performance-timeline/#idl-def-PerformanceObserver interface can be used to observe the Performance Timeline

Re: Feedback needed for April 2015 face-to-face location by *January 27, 2015*

On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 02:03 +0300, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 21.01.2015, 01:40, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org: All, We are fortunate enough to have two proposed locations for the HTML and Web Applications face-to-face meeting in the week of April 13-17, 2015. Your feedback

Feedback needed for April 2015 face-to-face location by *January 27, 2015*

All, We are fortunate enough to have two proposed locations for the HTML and Web Applications face-to-face meeting in the week of April 13-17, 2015. Your feedback will help us picking the location. 1. Redmond, WA, USA (Hosted by Microsoft): 2. Zaragoza, Spain (Hosted by Yandex) Please provide

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 10:22 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Travis, Gary, Philippe, Since Anne's proposal hasn't been implemented, what exactly is the plan for these two specs? There is also a related proposal DOM L3 Events Input Events Work to the Editing Task Force by Ben [Ben] and

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 09:44 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/19/14 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Although there appears to be agreement that work on the [uievents] spec should stop, the various replies

Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 21:04 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: W3C-specific note: This specification documents current RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 handling in contemporary Web browser implementations. As a consequence, this

FYI: Navigation Error Logging

This specification defines an interface to store and retrieve error data related to the previous navigations of a document: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-navigation-error-logging-20140211/ As usual, we welcome all feedback on public-web-p...@w3.org Thank you, Philippe

Re: Call for Exclusions: W3C DOM4

Coralie, W3C DOM4 is only done in HTML, not WebApps. Is it possible to update the CfE? Philippe On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:06 +0100, Coralie Mercier wrote: Dear Advisory Committee representative, This is a W3C Patent Policy Call for Exclusions for the following Recommendation Track document:

Last Call for High Resolution Time Level 2

Dear Webapps folks, The Web Performance Working Group published a new version of High Resolution Time (performance.now()) to add support for Web Workers: [[ interface WorkerPerformance { DOMHighResTimeStamp now(); }; partial interface WorkerGlobalScope { readonly attribute WorkerPerformance

FYI: Resource Priorities and Beacon API

FYI, the Web Performance Working Group just published Resource Priorities and Beacon yesterday and we're interested in feedback on the ideas and approaches. Resource priorities allows you to tweak the download priority of your resources, while Beacon enables synchronously transfer data from the

Re: FYI: Resource Priorities and Beacon API

On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 13:23 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: FYI, the Web Performance Working Group just published Resource Priorities and Beacon yesterday and we're interested in feedback on the ideas and approaches. Resource priorities allows you to tweak the download priority of your

Re: [admin] DOM4 is now a deliverable of the HTMLWG

On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 09:34 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote: FYI, as Philippe announced a few days ago, the HTMLWG's new charter [1] includes DOM4: [[ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Sep/0129.html The new charter includes: * An Dual License experiment for some

Re: Web Storage's Normative References and PR / REC

On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 18:23 +, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: The goal is to demonstrate that the materials referenced are stable and any change to those references won't have an impact on the recommendations. What do you mean by stable

Re: Web Storage's Normative References and PR / REC

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 07:28 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: Yves, Philippe, WebApps agreed via [CfC] to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web Storage [CR] (implementation report is [ImplReport]). The CR has three normative W3C references that are not yet Recommendations: DOMCore WD,

Re: Web Storage's Normative References and PR / REC

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 12:04 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hope this helps, The above was helpful but I'm wondering about WebStorage's normative reference to DOMCore WD. If we do the same type of evaluation and testing for DOMCore that is needed for HTML5, will that be sufficient to move

[WebIDL] Interface object prototype and function object

In http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/ section 4.4.1 says: The interface object for a given non-callback interface is a function object. section 4 says: If an object is defined to be a function object, then it has characteristics as follows: Its [[Prototype]] internal property is the Function

Reminder: May face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps

Dear All, This is a friendly reminder for folks to register for the upcoming face-to-face meetings in one month from today: * Web Application Working Group, May 1/2 (Tuesday/Wednesday) * HTML Working Group, May 3/4 (Thursday/Friday) * Web Application Security Working Group, May 2/3

May face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps

Folks, We found a host for a potential meeting in the first week of May. Microsoft kindly agreed to give us space in the Silicon Valley. So, here is a revised proposal: - WebApps WG: May 1/2 (Tuesday/Wednesday) - HTML WG: May 3/4 (Thursday/Friday) - WebAppSec: May 2/3 (Wednesday/Thursday) Is

Re: April face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps

, Philippe On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 17:58 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: in order to facilitate the work of the WebApps and HTML Working Groups, I've been discussing with the Chairs the idea of having a face-to-face in the silicon valley in April. Due to various constraints (WWW2012 and Google I/O

April face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps

Folks, in order to facilitate the work of the WebApps and HTML Working Groups, I've been discussing with the Chairs the idea of having a face-to-face in the silicon valley in April. Due to various constraints (WWW2012 and Google I/O most notably), I ended up with the second week of April: -

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 13:14 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, The Widgets DigSig spec [W-DigSig] has been sitting in PR for over 4 months now, blocked on the Elliptic Curve PAG [ECC-PAG]. AFAICT, this PAG has just started its unspecified length Fishing Expedition seeking some

New tests for element traversal properties

I took a pass at rewriting the existing element traversal tests we have at [1]: http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ElementTraversal/tests/submissions/W3C/ The new tests now relies on testharness.js, so they can easily be integrated in the framework. I also submitted those tests to DOM Core as well:

Last Call: Performance Timeline, User Timing, and Resource Timing

This is a Last Call Working Draft transition announcement for the following 3 documents: Performance Timeline http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-performance-timeline-20110901/ User Timing: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-user-timing-20110901/ Resource Timing:

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 23:59 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:47:53 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is Progress

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is Progress Events. This is done

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 15:51 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:50:35 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: What does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? It means we are consistent with their work: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-diff-20110525

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:32 +, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features in the WHATWG version that got rejected

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote: Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems like a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or some helpful concept). Agreed, but no one

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 13:41 -0400, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 8/5/11 11:52 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote: Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec

Call for Prior Art Related to US Patent 7,743,336 and US Patent Application 20070101146

This is a public call for prior art. The W3C seeks information about access control systems available before October 2005 and content distribution systems before April 2006 that offer a viable solution that may apply to the use of access requests policy in Widgets. On 13 November 2009, pursuant

Re: [Bug 12111] New: spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

Art wrote: All - given that addressing 12111 is a low priority for Ian, one way forward is for someone else to create a concrete proposal. Here is a concrete proposal: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/Web%20Storage.html Philippe

Re: [Bug 12111] New: spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:59 -0700, James Robinson wrote: 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. Where does it do that? My only intent was to fix 12111 and nothing

Re: Testing Requirements

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 20:15 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote: Hi Philippe, Just wondering if we have different port support yet on test-w3c.org? Would be nice

Re: [Bug 12111] spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 18:38 +, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hixie, All - PLH proposed a fix for this bug in comment #5 (use DOMString instead of any in {get,set}Item). AFAIU, PLH's proposal matches what has been widely implemented. As such, it

Re: [Bug 12111] spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 18:51 +, Ian Hickson wrote: I don't believe that this new feature will get implemented. It's going to break too many pages on the Web, That's the kind of thing implementation feedback will determine. You've got that feedback already. See

Re: [Bug 12111] spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 19:00 +, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 18:51 +, Ian Hickson wrote: I don't believe that this new feature will get implemented. It's going to break too many pages on the Web, That's the kind

Re: Testing Requirements

On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 13:19 +0100, Marcos Caceres wrote: Hi Dom, or W3C Staff, Can we please get a full rundown of the systems available on test server. Can we also have all the details about getting access to the server, etc. Here is a description of what we now have: For the testing

Re: Testing Requirements

On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 11:04 +0100, James Graham wrote: On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: (I see that Art documented most of this in http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing_Requirements but thought this ought to be confirmed on the list) Is there some way to

Re: Testing Requirements

Doh! I didn't see the message from Mike before answering this one. So, whatever the message from Mike is good. Apologizes for the extra noise. Philippe On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 15:32 -0500, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 11:04 +0100, James Graham wrote: On 02/17/2011 09:55 AM

Last Call for Navigation Timing API

This is a Last Call transition announcement for Navigation Timing: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-navigation-timing-20110111/ Please send comments to public-web-p...@w3.org with [NavigationTiming] at the start of the subject line by 8 February 2011. Note: Feedback would be especially

Re: CfC: to publish a new WD of the DOM3 Events spec; deadline Sep 4

On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 17:46 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: the editors' list reads like a war monument... Actually, names have been added between the December 2007 and this version and I don't know why (more people to blame? :). Arnaud and Bob didn't edit the events specification [1] in the past.