Allen Wirfs-Brock:
The internal methods such as [[Delete]] aren't an actual extension
mechanism. They are a specification device used to define the
semantics of ECMAScript. As such they are subject to change (there
are significant changes in the ES5 spec.) and could even completely
disappear
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:16 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
OK, that is indeed what I’m hearing from you guys. “Host objects may
implement these [internal] methods in any manner unless specified
otherwise” in ES3 doesn’t sound like it’s particularly discouraging of
the different behaviour that Web
On Sep 26, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
- Note: I think catchall deleters are used only by Web Storage and
not by other new or legacy interfaces.
Seems like a strong reason to change to the proposed API to
eliminate the need
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/26/09 4:36 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
A scoped selector string is a string that begins with an exclamation
point followed by a the remainder of the selector.
This assumes that '!' will never be allowed at the beginning of a CSS
selector, right?
It does, but the
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
There are methods, but I'm not optimistic that they will cause
property reflection to wither.
getItem/setItem/removeItem/key/clear methods, plus .length -- not a
balanced name-set stylistically, but usable to avoid collisions (my
key
Yehuda,
I have raised the issue[1][2] you outline with Ian Jacobs, the W3C
Process working group and others at W3C,
It's my particular concern and thesis that authors and end-users,
including those requiring alternative affordance
are not well represented on W3C working groups.
Why is
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What does typeof say for such a callable object?
I think it should probably say object, though that's not
compatible with ES3 or current WebKit practice.
ES3 lets host objects
ISSUE-105 (what is loading?): How should we count progress of things which are
not measured in bytes? [Progress Events]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/105
Raised by: Charles McCathieNevile
On product: Progress Events
HTML 5 wants to count some file transfers using progress
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:50:04 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:38:49 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The Application Cache feature in HTML5 uses an event named 'progress'
as part of the process, in a manner
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
The alternative is to think now about extending Progress Events to deal
with non byte-length progress (e.g. a series of transactions, each of
which is very rapid alone but which add up to minutes).
My preference would be to create new
On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:41 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This may provide a way to implement some of these behaviors in pure
ECMAScript. The current proposal does allow [[Construct]] without
[[Call]], but not [[Call]]
Hi folks,
it took a long time, but here it is:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.31
This attempts to clarify the things that Hixie says he doesn't understand,
clean up some things noted by Kats and Garrett, and notes the issue raised
by HTML 5's
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:20:52 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
The alternative is to think now about extending Progress Events to deal
with non byte-length progress (e.g. a series of transactions, each of
which is very rapid alone but
On 9/27/09 3:30 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I believe we could get rid of custom deleters from the Web platform if
Firefox and IE remove support for custom deleters in LocalStorage,
refuse to add it back, and refuse to implement it for DOMStringMap. If
that happened, I'm sure other browsers and the
On 9/27/09 2:28 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This is not an issue for DOM methods. It's an issue for interfaces such
as HTMLCollection and HTMLFormElement that support indexing by function
call syntax, for legacy compatibility reasons.
Huh. Gecko hasn't supported this, and we haven't had
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Comparing https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-September/
with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
2009JulSep/ and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/
shows why this cross posting madness
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 10:41 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
On Sep 26, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This may provide a way to implement some of these behaviors in pure
ECMAScript. The current proposal does
-- Forwarded message --
From: David-Sarah Hopwood david-sa...@jacaranda.org
Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Cross posting madness must stop.
To: es-disc...@mozilla.org
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Comparing https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2009-September/
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Cross posting isn't great, but a brand new list will be missing many people
with an interest in the topic for a while until it ramps up. In the
meantime, I think both es-discuss and public-webapps are open for anyone to
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:57 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I'm musing a bit here, bear with me. If we only hack
incrementally, and preserve backward compatibility with frankly
dumb (or merely hasty) design decisions (many mine!) then we'll
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/27/09 3:30 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I believe we could get rid of custom deleters from the Web
platform if
Firefox and IE remove support for custom deleters in LocalStorage,
refuse to add it back, and refuse to implement it for
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 00:36 , Cameron McCormack wrote:
Indeed, much of the custom [[Get]] etc. functionality can be turned
into
ES5 meta-object stuff. A pertinent question is then: should we
change
Web IDL to specify an ES5 binding (and not
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/27/09 2:28 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This is not an issue for DOM methods. It's an issue for interfaces
such
as HTMLCollection and HTMLFormElement that support indexing by
function
call syntax, for legacy compatibility reasons.
On Sep 27, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Indeed, I hadn't realized that my cc:s to public-webapps and public-
html
were being dropped *silently*, without any bounce message. If that's
due
to the configuation of those lists, then it's a rather user-hostile
mailing
list
ECMA TC39 (the group responsible for ECMAScript) has expressed a
strong interest in having a list for joint discussion with the W3C,
and particularly the Web Apps WG. And they are especially interested
in review of Web IDL. I suggest we set up public-script...@w3.org
(name suggested by
On Sep 27, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
But there's no point pretending the Web (ES, DOM, etc.) is an
example of a well-designed toolkit for building user-facing
distributed apps!
But we're not really free to discard
On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
ECMA TC39 (the group responsible for ECMAScript) has expressed a
strong interest in having a list for joint discussion with the W3C,
and particularly the Web Apps WG. And they are especially interested
in review of Web IDL. I suggest we
Maciej All,
While I am just an independent implementor of WebIDL, if my opinion
counts, I'd support the idea to have a separate list for WebIDL
discussions.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
of Web IDL. I suggest we set up public-script...@w3.org (name
On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
ECMA TC39 (the group responsible for ECMAScript) has expressed a
strong interest in having a list for joint discussion with the W3C,
and particularly the Web Apps WG. And they are
Hi, Folks-
I've submitted the request for public-script...@w3.org, and I
anticipate that this will be created Monday (tomorrow). Thanks to
everyone for the discussion leading up to this... I'm very happy that
this coordination is going on.
I will announce when the list is ready, with
30 matches
Mail list logo
