On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things?
A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification
Unlikely.
B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into my copy
Definitely not.
HTH
Ms2ger
On 05.11.2012, at 16:28, Julian Reschke wrote:
Yes. Exactly.
It's not about offline apps, it's about reducing loading time.
There's already the prefetch link relation that you could use.
You need at least two pages to start prefetching.
And you can't prefetch anything for the first
Ian,
Could be slightly more formal?
You are speaking of hypocrisy but this seems like a matter of politeness,
right?
Or are you actually claiming that there's a license breach?
That there are different mechanisms at WHATWG and W3C is not really new.
Paul
Le 6 nov. 2012 à 02:42, Ian Hickson a
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Could be slightly more formal?
You are speaking of hypocrisy but this seems like a matter of politeness,
right?
I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only
applies those values to other people, not to itself. Specifically,
On 2012-11-06 09:28, Sergey Nikitin wrote:
On 05.11.2012, at 16:28, Julian Reschke wrote:
Yes. Exactly.
It's not about offline apps, it's about reducing loading time.
There's already the prefetch link relation that you could use.
You need at least two pages to start prefetching.
Why
On 6 November 2012 09:46, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Could be slightly more formal?
You are speaking of hypocrisy but this seems like a matter of
politeness, right?
I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only
On 11/6/12 3:46 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
the W3C does not generally give credit where credit is due.
This issue has been bothering me for a while, so thanks for raising it.
I agree proper attribution is a problem that needs to be addressed in
the WG's versions of these specs (URL, DOM4,
On 11/6/12 3:23 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things?
A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification
Unlikely.
My expectation is that public-webapps will continue to be one venue for
comments
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19878
Priority: P2
Bug ID: 19878
CC: kr...@microsoft.com, m...@w3.org,
public-webapps@w3.org
Assignee: dave.n...@w3.org
Summary: Revert change in
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:57:38 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things?
B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into
my copy
I am not aware of any
On Thu 1 Nov 2012, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
I would like the story of event.char and event.key to be that
event.char describes the generated character (if any) in its
shifted/unshifted/modified/localized glory while event.key describes
the key (perhaps on a best-effort basis, but in a way
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 11/1/12 7:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
There was no good *reason* to be private by default
Yes, there was. It makes it much simpler to author non-buggy components.
Most component authors don't really contemplate how
13 matches
Mail list logo
