Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

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

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

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

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

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

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

05.10.2014, 16:07, "Arthur Barstow" : > On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>  Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't >>  seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back >>  to WD/LCWD. >> >>  Does any implementation actually feel that it wou

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't >> seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back >> to WD/LCWD. >> >> Does any implementation actually

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back to WD/LCWD. Does any implementation actually feel that it would be? So, it appears you two recommend #2 below (publ

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back to WD/LCWD. Does any implementation actually feel that it would be? / Jonas On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > Can we at least publish a

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 10/2/14 7:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old TR/? Yes of course. (And certainly continue to work with Anne, Marcos, etc. on a mutually agreeable way forward for Issue 75.) And speaking of Issue 75: On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

Please please do. That's a useful thing to do regularly… 02.10.2014, 13:17, "Mounir Lamouri" : > Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old > TR/? > > -- Mounir > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, at 20:36, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>  On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: >>>  On T

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old TR/? -- Mounir On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, at 20:36, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >>> It e

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested it should wor

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is > what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification: > "Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative > order within that task, see bug 26440.

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 23:26, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes > > > something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On September 18, 2014 at 6:53:38 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 08:28, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I think it's likely to result in many implementation bugs if we rely > > on this being defined buried inside an algorithm rather than at least > > mentioned a

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

"Second, I'm still very worried that people will interpret screen.orientation.angle=0 as portrait. I don't expect to be able to convince people here to remove the property. However I think it would be good to at least make it clear in the spec that the .angle property can not be used to detect port

CFC to using new pub process, Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On September 25, 2014 at 7:34:33 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote: > WebApps could (assuming we have consensus to do so) offer to be an early > adopter for [1] but I don't think this process issue should block the > publication of the LC. Ok so, let's start getting consensus o

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes > > something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested > > it should work (using "animation frame task

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested it should work (using "animation frame tasks"). So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line su

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 9/24/14 12:06 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: There is no point in putting anything on /TR/ until the W3C fixes the ability to have documents sync with what is on GH. Otherwise, we will just find ourselves here again in a few months. The stability of the document doesn't have any correlation to i

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

(chair hat still off) 25.09.2014, 12:36, "Anne van Kesteren" : > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM,   wrote: >>  In the absence of any clear rationale, "It might change somehow" is >> effectively "FUD", much as "someone might have IPR" is. So while you are >> technically correct that a technology

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, wrote: > In the absence of any clear rationale, "It might change somehow" is > effectively "FUD", much as "someone might have IPR" is. So while you are > technically correct that a technology and its specification can change, that > is effectively irrelevant.

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

(Chair hat off) 24.09.2014, 18:11, "Marcos Caceres" : > On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) > wrote: >>  On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>>  Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately >>> addressed? >>  I di

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately > > addressed? > > I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot ove

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately > addressed? I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot over defining (even to an approximation) what implementers actually have to do. I said as much on

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

During this CfC, Jonas submitted some comments to this list starting with the following: Jonas - did Mounir's responses adequately address your comments or is there something you propose be done before LCWD is published?

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 08:28, Jonas Sicking wrote: > I think it's likely to result in many implementation bugs if we rely > on this being defined buried inside an algorithm rather than at least > mentioned at the definition of the property. I think it's good feedback. I could probably make this m

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> It's somewhat inconsistent that we use the term "natural" to indicate >> "the most natural direction based on hardware", but we use the term >> "primary" when indicating "the most natura

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Sorry, my first comment is a naming bikeshed issue. Feel free to > ignore as it's coming in late, but I hadn't thought of it until just > now. I remember a wise person who once said "never count on me to bikeshed names". I think he was named Jo

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Also, I can't find any normative definition of if orientation.angle > should increase or decrease if the user rotates a device 90 degrees > clockwise? My bad, I see it now. Given how easy this is to get wrong, it might be worth adding this i

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Mounir and Marcos would like to publish a LCWD of The Screen Orientation API > and this is a Call for Consensus to do using the latest ED (not yet in the > LCWD template) as the basis: > > Sorry

CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

Mounir and Marcos would like to publish a LCWD of The Screen Orientation API and this is a Call for Consensus to do using the latest ED (not yet in the LCWD template) as the basis: The spec has three open Issues, all labeled Future + Enhancement an