half Of John Resig
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 6:33 AM
To: Lachlan Hunt
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile; WebApps WG
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec
> Firefox appears to have some issues that might related to the API, though I
> haven't investigated the c
On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:30 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:26:16 +0100, Cameron McCormack
wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile:
If anyone objects to this approach (which saves some administrative
work and some time), please speak up...
Web IDL is still a WD. At some point before
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:26:16 +0100, Cameron McCormack
wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile:
If anyone objects to this approach (which saves some administrative
work and some time), please speak up...
Web IDL is still a WD. At some point before Rec, I guess selectors-api
would need to block on Web
Charles McCathieNevile:
> If anyone objects to this approach (which saves some administrative
> work and some time), please speak up...
Web IDL is still a WD. At some point before Rec, I guess selectors-api
would need to block on Web IDL progressing. What point should that be?
--
Cameron McCor
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate
Recommendation, following the end of the last call. The disposition of
comments[2] has no formal objections, and I believe all substantive
issues are
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:54:03 +0100, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
Hi John,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM, John Resig wrote:
Opera supports publishing this spec as a CR - and if we can get a test
suite and interop report in time, in going for a PR straight away.
Is this a different test sui
John Resig wrote:
As of last night's nightly WebKit has the first 100% passing implementation.
Interesting. Did they do this by violating the "If the user agent also
supports some level of CSS, the implementation SHOULD support the same
set of selectors in both these APIs and CSS" recommend
> Firefox appears to have some issues that might related to the API, though I
> haven't investigated the cause of those yet, so I don't know for sure.
> Unfortunately, IE8 can't run John's tests because it relies on some DOM2
> features that aren't yet supported, so the testing framework would ne
Jonas Sicking:
> Still not sure that I understand that chart. As I read it, firefox for
> the namespaceURI parameter of DOMImplementation.createDocument treats
> undefined as null (hence the 'N' in the second column). However I
> would have really expected us to treat undefined as the string
> 'un
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>
> Boris Zbarsky:
>> On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure in Gecko is
>> due to a violation of this part of the API:
>>
>> Undefined=Empty
>>
>> This is using a WebIDL syntax from a working draft that we don't
>> im
Cameron McCormack wrote:
If that does end up being the more common behaviour, I’ll change the
default in Web IDL to be to stringify to "undefined" unless overridden,
For what it's worth, that's what the current WebIDL draft says in any case.
-Boris
Jonas Sicking:
> An alternative would be to not mention behavior for undefined at all
> and let it be whatever the default is for WebIDL once that spec makes
> up its mind. It seems more important to me to behave consistently with
> other methods than to have any specific behavior for undefined.
Boris Zbarsky:
> On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure in Gecko is
> due to a violation of this part of the API:
>
> Undefined=Empty
>
> This is using a WebIDL syntax from a working draft that we don't
> implement yet, and the current JavaScript DOM binding in Gecko alway
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Firefox appears to have some issues that might related to the API, though
>> I haven't investigated the cause of those yet, so I don't know for sure.
>
> On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure i
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Firefox appears to have some issues that might related to the API,
though I haven't investigated the cause of those yet, so I don't know
for sure.
On John Resig's tests in particular, every single failure in Gecko is
due to a violation of this part of the API:
Undefin
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In addition, since this specification has a number of implementations we
may try to have a zero-length CR period (by approving tests and showing
that we have interoperability already) - any comments on that approach
are welcome.
Based on John Resig's tests [1],
timeless wrote:
This specification introduces two methods that take a group of selectors
it requires a script like the following that iterates
that => which ?
No, "that" is correct in this case.
With these methods, it is easier to match a set of Element nodes
based on specific criteria.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/
I've been meaning to read this for months. sorry for the delay, i
expect none of my comments are significant, but i enjoy reading and
writing
> This specification introduces two
Hi John,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM, John Resig wrote:
>
>> Opera supports publishing this spec as a CR - and if we can get a test suite
>> and interop report in time, in going for a PR straight away.
>
> Is this a different test suite from the one published here:
> http://ejohn.org/apps/se
> Opera supports publishing this spec as a CR - and if we can get a test suite
> and interop report in time, in going for a PR straight away.
Is this a different test suite from the one published here:
http://ejohn.org/apps/selectortest/
http://github.com/jeresig/selectortest/tree/master
Or is i
Travis Leithead wrote:
Microsoft also supports publishing. We'd also like to help by
contributing tests for this spec. Who's the best point-of-contact for
reviewing and checking in tests?
I am. Just send me the tests, or a link to them, and I can work in
integrating them, as well as John Re
as Sicking
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:06 PM
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec
So do I, and most likely the rest of mozilla.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> On Thu
Jonas Sicking wrote:
So do I, and most likely the rest of mozilla.
Seconded.
-Boris
Charles McCathieNevile:
> this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate
> Recommendation, following the end of the last call.
+1
--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
So do I, and most likely the rest of mozilla.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate
>> Recomme
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, "Charles McCathieNevile"
wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate
> Recommendation, following the end of the last call.
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/
>
One minor fix: s/and t
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:21:09 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
Hi folks,
this is a call for consensus to move the Selectors API [1] to Candidate
Recommendation,
Opera supports publishing this spec as a CR - and if we can get a test
suite and interop report in time, in going for a
27 matches
Mail list logo
