Hi. Marcos.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w...@marcosc.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:24 AM
> To: Nilsson, Claes1
> Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; public-sysa...@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting
> at TPA
Sounds good.
Thanks.
roBman
On 1/11/13 4:43 PM, Feras Moussa wrote:
Yes, WebSockets was missing - I've gone ahead and updated the spec to include
it.
Thanks for sharing the links, the content is well thought out. In particular,
your diagram does a good job summarizing some of the key consu
Yes, WebSockets was missing - I've gone ahead and updated the spec to include
it.
Thanks for sharing the links, the content is well thought out. In particular,
your diagram does a good job summarizing some of the key consumers and
producers that come to play regarding Streams. I'll review it in
Along with WebSockets as Aymeric mentioned...WebRTC DataChannels are
also missing.
And I think Aymeric's point about MediaStream is important too...but
there is very strong push-back from within the Media Capture & Streams
TF that they don't think this is relevant 8/
Also, here's a couple of
Agreed. Some of the points listed appear to be things already addressed.
Takeshi and I have some feedback on the initial mail, but will wait and provide
thoughts on the proposal instead. Looking forward to seeing it.
> From: tyosh...@google.com
> Date: Fri, 1 No
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, François REMY <
francois.remy@outlook.com> wrote:
> Since JavaScript does not provide a way to check if an object implements
> an interface, there should probably exist a way to check that from the API,
> like:
>
Basically it should be sufficient if each API
OK. There seems to be some disconnect, but I'm fine with waiting for
Domenic's proposal first.
Takeshi
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Domenic Denicola
> wrote:
> > I have concrete suggestions as to what such an API could look like—
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23431
Glenn Maynard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23310
Arun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23416
Arun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23431
Arun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
A Recommendation of "Widget Interface" was published today:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-widgets-apis-20131031/>
Congratulations Marcos!
This publication means that of WebApps' 7 widget related documents, 5
are now Recommendations and the other 2 are WG Notes. As such
This is a Request for Comments for the Last Call Working Draft of
Pointer Lock:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-pointerlock-20131031/>
If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by
November 28 using a Subject: header of "[pointerlock]".
-Thanks, AB
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23451
Arun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23319
Arun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Note that all LC Commentary, including that sent on this listserv, is tracked
here:
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/LCWD-FileAPI-20130912
-- A*
On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For the purposes of tracking your comments for the September 12 File API Last
> Call Work
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and
> also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have
> already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to
> http:
On 2013-10-31 16:04, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and
> also to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have
> already been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to
> http://developer.chrome.com/e
I want to say that we are interested in implementing the JSON manifest and also
to discuss additions to the manifest. Content security policies have already
been mentioned and we are looking at something similar to
http://developer.chrome.com/extensions/contentSecurityPolicy.html, which allows
On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> [ My apologies in advance for cross-posting but I think it's needed for
> this coordination topic. ]
>
> Hi All,
>
> Last June, the Chairs of WebApps and SysApps agreed to allocate a time
> slot @ TPAC Shenzhen for a joint m
Hi,
For the purposes of tracking your comments for the September 12 File API
Last Call Working Draft, please let us know if Arun's reply is
satisfactory or not. In the absence of a reply from you by November 7,
we will assume Arun's reply is OK with you.
-Thanks, ArtB
On 10/23/13 6:04 PM, e
[ My apologies in advance for cross-posting but I think it's needed for
this coordination topic. ]
Hi All,
Last June, the Chairs of WebApps and SysApps agreed to allocate a time
slot @ TPAC Shenzhen for a joint meeting from 16:00-17:00 on Monday
November 11 [1].
The one topic currently iden
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> I have concrete suggestions as to what such an API could look like—and, more
> importantly, how its semantics would significantly differ from this one—which
> I hope to flesh out and share more broadly by the end of this weekend.
> Howe
Yes, having the InputStream and OutputStream interfaces would be great, and the
“Stream” class could inherit from both. The important thing is that an external
API can return either a readable or a writable stream, depending on what make
sense for it.
Since JavaScript does not provide a way t
24 matches
Mail list logo
