On 04/07/11 21:43, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 07/04/2011 09:01 PM, Dave Raggett wrote:
On 04/07/11 17:57, Olli Pettay wrote:
Mutation listener could easily
implement old/new value handling itself, especially if it knows which
attributes it is interested in.
How exactly would the listener know the
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:16:55 +0200, Daniel Veditz dved...@mozilla.com
wrote:
The fix for the spec would be to drop the line
Once the end of the file is reached, the user agent must
dispatch the event one final time, as defined below.
For clarity something explicit could be added
If
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13155
Summary: The security considerations section needs to be
updated to take CORS into account.
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13156
Summary: The charset parameter is now an optional parameter
(even though it can only be set to UTF-8). That should
probably be stated here.
Product: WebAppsWG
Version:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:14:38 +0200, 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
other time.
Opera does, but we may have to change that. (Our script
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
mailto:rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Rafael
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:50:57 +0200, Hill, Brad bh...@paypal-inc.com
wrote:
I feel that the goals of this draft are either inconsistent with the
basic architecture of the web, cannot be meaningfully accomplished by
the proposed mechanism, or both, and I haven't seen any discussion of
these
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c8 is the
way forward? I.e. we introduce new exception interfaces in DOM Core for
all the different exception types and update all other specifications
Thanks Anne and Dan. I added your comments to bug 13071.
All - in addition to 13071, on July 6, Anne submitted 13155 and 13156
against this spec. Unless I hear otherwise, I assume the group wants to
block LC until all of these bugs are addressed.
As always, patches/fixes for open bugs are
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13158
Summary: i dont understand this
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#mes
sage-channels
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13158
Ross Nicoll j...@jrn.me.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 7/6/11 4:27 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
How does that scale to the case where you set the observer on the
document or on a div element acting as a contained for content editable
content? If I am not mistaken you would have to keep a copy of the
document, or of that div element respectively, and
Thanks Björn and Brad for your comments.
I agree early comments from a broad set of stakeholders is important and
I encourage everyone to please send all technical feedback on this spec to:
public-webapps@w3.org
-Art Barstow
On 7/5/11 11:14 PM, ext Hill, Brad wrote:
To the procedural
On 7/6/2011 5:38 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/6/11 4:27 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
How does that scale to the case where you set the observer on the
document or on a div element acting as a contained for content editable
content? If I am not mistaken you would have to keep a copy of the
document,
On 7/6/11 10:23 AM, John J. Barton wrote:
This is another advantage of onModelChanging or 'before' events. All of
the previous values are available for listeners and the task of
selecting which ones to process is left to the listener.
Yes, I realize this is useful. This is why Gecko
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Dave Raggett d...@w3.org wrote:
On 04/07/11 21:43, Olli Pettay wrote:
In the easiest case when the script cares about only one specific
attribute:
element.**addAttributeChangeListener(
{
prevVal: element.getAttribute(foo),
handleMutation:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 7/6/11 10:23 AM, John J. Barton wrote:
This is another advantage of onModelChanging or 'before' events. All of
the previous values are available for listeners and the task of
selecting which ones to process is left to
Thanks Scott for volunteering to create a fix for 13020.
Ideally, the Editor would address all of the open bugs and WebApps'
version of Web Storage would be as close as possible to the WHATWG's
version. However, given the conflicting constraints of moving this spec
to LC now and the low
What is the expected behavior when calling update() in a cursor index that
requires unique values. Firefox allows the update, even when it results in a
duplicate value. Chrome throws an error event with the code set to UNKNOWN_ERR.
We believe an error should be thrown because of the violation
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:21 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
In the definition of IDBRequest.transaction it stipulates that This
property can be null for
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13162
Summary: The notes really do need to be cleaned up to be made
explicit. Like WTH does this actually say? The fail
the WebSocket connection algorithm invokes the close
the
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 07/06/2011 09:12 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto: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
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c8 is the
way forward? I.e. we introduce new exception interfaces in DOM Core for
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12179
Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
prioritisation of the bug
Hi Hixie,
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
prioritisation of
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 other time.
Testcase:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c8 is the
way forward? I.e. we introduce new exception interfaces in DOM Core for
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Do you oppose others submitting fixes to your spec bugs?
If someone is interested in submitting fixes, they are welcome to contact
me, so that I can work with them to work out how we can get something set
up. There are a number of people who have
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on
public-webapps, I would appreciate it if you would please move TR
process type discussions to another Public list.
I'm not asking to have a discussion about it at all; I'm asking that you
On 6 Jul 2011, at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Hixie,
On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
Can we please stop letting the
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11406
Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c8 is
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
Just catching up with this thread. We ran into the same problem last week while
investigating FormData and XHR. Since FormData is designed to allow XHR to
interact
with existing form end-points that usually required a navigation, we've found
that
few of them have been tested with empty
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
outlined in
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#reading-a-file
What is the expected behaviour for FileReader.readAsXXX(null)? Currently
I think both IE10 and Chrome fail silently and there are no events fired
whereas Firefox appears to throw an internal NS_ERROR_INVALID_POINTER
exception.
The spec
On 7/6/2011 6:06 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I'd much prefer to see code that looks like:
try {doSomeDOMStuff() }
catch (e) {
switch (e.name) {
case NoNotificationAllowedError: ...; break;
case HierarchyRequestError: ...; break;
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
The thing I don't like about this proposal is that it encourages authors
to use e instanceof IndexSizeError or similar. This will work 98% of
the time and then fail in an extremely mysterious way when multiple
globals are involved. All you need is
I'd be OK with it. Jonas, what do you think?
J
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:21 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Israel Hilerio
On 7/6/11 7:54 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#reading-a-file
What is the expected behaviour for FileReader.readAsXXX(null)? Currently
I think both IE10 and Chrome fail silently and there are no events fired
whereas Firefox appears to throw an internal
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
What is the expected behavior when calling update() in a cursor index that
requires unique values. Firefox allows the update, even when it results in
a duplicate value. Chrome throws an error event with the code set
On 6/30/11 6:01 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com
mailto:a...@mozilla.com wrote:
Sorry if these have all been discussed before. I just read the
File API for the first time and 2 random questions popped in my
head.
Hi Arun,
Adrian Bateman:
The spec doesn't seem to state this explicitly and I can't tell if
there is supposed to be an implicit requirement from WebIDL. Perhaps
the expectation is that this falls into the error condition and
should set readyState to DONE, result to null, and process the
46 matches
Mail list logo
