Like Mozilla and Apple [1] [2], I would also like to briefly lay out my
viewpoint on Web Components in advance of the face-to-face meeting.
I love the work that has been done thus far on the web components specs, and
while Microsoft has not yet begun development of these features [3] I know
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21387
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17309
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21386
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27986
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27444
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 24/04/2015 02:18 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Ted Mielczarek t...@mozilla.com wrote:
Has anyone ever proposed exposing the structured clone algorithm directly as
an API?
There has been some talk about moving structured cloning into
ECMAScript proper and
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26203
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25203
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21434
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17309
Bug 17309 depends on bug 21434, which changed state.
Bug 21434 Summary: Need to spec liveness of Gamepad objects
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21434
What|Removed |Added
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25202
Ted Mielczarek [:ted] t...@mielczarek.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Thanks to Xiaoqian, the UI Events and the two D3E Keyboard Events
code/key Values specs have been moved to Github and we plan to publish
them next week using the following Draft WDs as the basis:
https://w3c.github.io/uievents/TR.html
https://w3c.github.io/DOM-Level-3-Events-code/TR.html
Would be nice to have this. We only have imperative ways to grab JSON (that
is verified as JSON) . This would give a built in way to grab JSON data. I
do agree with Wilson that we can do this with custom elements but I think
this is much more suited to be a native element or extension of script.
Step where you need to, to avoid falling over :-P.
The problems with generalized/extensible clone are clear but we have
structured clone already. It is based on a hardcoded type-case
statement. It could be improved a bit without trying to solve all
possible problems, IMHO.
/be
Anne van
Hi folks,
we're just cleaning up now.
We'll post a summary - there is most of one at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hnCoaJTXkfSSHD5spISJ76nqbDcOVNMamgByiz3QWLA/edit?pli=1#gid=0
The minutes (thanks to Taylor Savage fora great scribing job) are at
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
If we're not dragging in the notion of extensibility, is there complication?
I would be fine with adding an API without extensibility. I was just
afraid we might step on TC39's toes, but maybe since they're not
helping out
It seems like the OP's intent is just to deep-copy an object. Something
like the OP's tweet... or this, which we use in some tests:
function structuredClone(o) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var mc = new MessageChannel();
mc.port2.onmessage = function(e) {
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com
wrote:
A few notes about these specs:
* The permissions of the specs' now obsolete Github repository will be set
to read-only.
s/Github/Mercurial/ ?
On 4/24/15 11:33 AM, Gary Kacmarcik (Кошмарчик) wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com
mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
* The permissions of the specs' now obsolete Github repository
will be set to read-only.
s/Github/Mercurial/ ?
Duh; what
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
Does this have to be any more complicated than adding a toClone() convention
matching the ones we already have?
Yes, much more complicated. This does not work at all. You need
something to serialize the object so you can
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28558
Bug ID: 28558
Summary: [Shadow] Rename .path to .deepPath and make it hide
closed shadow trees in case it is accessed from
open/light DOM
Product: WebAppsWG
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jan Miksovsky jan@component.kitchen wrote:
Hi Tab,
Thanks for your feedback!
A primary motivation for proposing names instead of CSS selectors to control
distribution is to enable subclassing. We think it’s important for a
subclass to be able to override a
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
I find it decidedly relevant given I'm pointing out that attribute-specified
slots Domenic mentioned isn't what you described. Since the only venue in
which attribute-specified slots came up are [1], [2], and [3]. We're
24 matches
Mail list logo
