On 10/20/09 11:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It might be worth adding annotations to the spec to say "this API is
terrible, do not use" and "this API is terrible, do not follow its
design".
Are there any DOM Core methods where those notes would not apply? :-)
Node.parentNode is mostly ok.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> For example, I recently the Image Evolution demo from
> http://www.canvasdemos.com/2009/07/15/image-evolution/ as a kind of a
> performance test and let it run for three days - during which it was
> not "visible" 99.999% of the time. Should
Actually, I think Robert O'Callahan just made me change my mind on this one.
The choice of when to consider something "inactive" should probably be left up
to the user agent, rather than being part of a specification.
-Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Kardell [mailto:bkard...@gmai
On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
I agree. The reason I phrased it as I did was to contrast with my
previous remarks. The "children" attribute should be part of a
standard, even though it creates what I think is
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I agree. The reason I phrased it as I did was to contrast with my previous
> remarks. The "children" attribute should be part of a standard, even though
> it creates what I think is a poor design pattern (mix of previous/next and
> index
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> Is it really the visibility of the page that is being queried - or the
> some kind of state of a window? Maybe it's a silly bit of semantics,
> but it seems clearer to me that most of the things discussed here are
> about a whole window/tab
On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
In this particular case, I think anything that's implemented in all
of the
major browser engines should be an official standard, not just de
facto.
Why only in this particular case? :)
I didn't say "only"...
As a rule that seems like s
[my last attempt at an inline reply seems to have interacted strangely with
Maciej's email client, so I'm going to top-post for the moment until I work out
what was going on]
Good point. I don't know what other people are thinking, but when I say
"invisible" I'm thinking about pages that have b
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
>
>
> One thing I like about the "requestAnimationFrame" approach is that it
> makes it easy to do the right thing. If the simplest approach burns CPU
> cycles, and programmers have to t
On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
One thing I like about the "requestAnimationFrame" approach is that
it makes it easy to do the right thing. If the simplest approach
burns CPU cycles, and programmers have to think a bit harder to
avoid doing this, then I suspect the lik
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert >
wrote:
Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
interface up to date with some server state and is using
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert
>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
> >> interface up to da
> I don't feel too strongly about having both .children and .childElements,
> but I do think that .children is a little problematic for authors... they
> will always have to check to see if Comment nodes are included, because of
> the large marketshare for older versions of IE, while .childElements
Whoops, sent this to the wrong list, my apologies.
- Maciej
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Hello WG & Editors,
I think it's time to start including the Editor's Response notes in
bugzilla bug resolutions. We're informally starting to use other
parts of the propose
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert
> wrote:
>>
>> Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
>> interface up to date with some server state and is using up CPU time and
>> network resource to do so?
Hello WG & Editors,
I think it's time to start including the Editor's Response notes in
bugzilla bug resolutions. We're informally starting to use other parts
of the proposed Decision Policy and I'd like to start using the parts
that apply to editor actions. I would also like to address Adr
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
> Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its
> interface up to date with some server state and is using up CPU time and
> network resource to do so?
>
You could abuse my proposal to do this, by periodically (as frequ
This looks like a nice solution to the animation case.
Should we also consider the case where a web site wants to keep its interface
up to date with some server state and is using up CPU time and network resource
to do so?
E.g. I might have Google Wave open in a background window, viewing a do
Hey-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 10/20/09 4:42 PM):
On Oct 18, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Doug Schepers mailto:schep...@w3.org>> wrote:
So, rather than dwell on an admittedly imperfect spec, I personally
suggest
that we urge WebKit developers to
On Oct 18, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Doug Schepers
wrote:
So, rather than dwell on an admittedly imperfect spec, I personally
suggest
that we urge WebKit developers to implement .children
and .children.length,
in the anticipation that this wi
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:45:16 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:00:27 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:14:00 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
Actually that request would not change anything. As far as
XMLHttpRequest goes it would still tran
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:00:27 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:14:00 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
Actually that request would not change anything. As far as
XMLHttpRequest goes it would still transfer only a single entity.
In the sense that it is a single tran
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:14:00 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:16 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:26:08 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
The problem with this use case is that it does not map to any API. If
you would implement this the
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:47:59 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:36 +0200, Darin Fisher
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
If eventually we get native support for octet-arrays and all we can at
that point add the ability to XMLHttpReq
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:36 +0200, Darin Fisher
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If eventually we get native support for octet-arrays and all we can at
>>> that point add the ability to
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:36 +0200, Darin Fisher
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
If eventually we get native support for octet-arrays and all we can at
that point add the ability to XMLHttpRequest so you can send anything
you want.
Hmm, OK
If you envis
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:56:47 +0200, Darin Fisher
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think for a lot of authors the easiest would be easiest if it was in
>>> the form of multipart/form-da
As no one objected, ITS is no longer a feature at risk. It is the WG
recommended solution to this particular i18n problem.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:46 , Marcos Cacer
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:14 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>>
>> ta-VngNBkhUXz:
>> "If the protocol used for acquisition of a potential Zip archive
>> does
>> not provide, or otherwise include, a media type, then a user agent
>> should
On 10/19/09 20:56, "ext João Eiras" wrote:
>
>
>> We seem to come from different angles, and our objective may not the
>> same as
>> yours. This is not an official statement, but I could formulate our
>> objective like this:
>> "How do I enable richer web applications in a touch-aware browse
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:56:47 +0200, Darin Fisher
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
I think for a lot of authors the easiest would be easiest if it was in
the form of multipart/form-data as then they do not have to do anything
special to get the data on the s
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:16 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:26:08 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
The problem with this use case is that it does not map to any API. If
you would implement this the fetching of emails might happen over
XMLHttpRequest in which cas
Just wanted to let people know about the Widgets Compatibility Matrix
for Packaging and Configuration that our Invited Experts, Samuel Santos
and Daniel Silva from Present Technologies, and myself, are
collaborating on.
See:
http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/widgets_compatibility_matrix/tru
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:26:08 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:10:43 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:13:23 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
If only a subset of the attributes ends up being used, i.e. appcache
is not going to dispatch progre
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:55:21 +0200, Darin Fisher
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to revive the "Proposal for sending multiple files via
>> XMLHttpRequest.send()" thread
>> started by Jian Li back in September.
>>
>> As pointed out on that thread
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:55:21 +0200, Darin Fisher
wrote:
I'd like to revive the "Proposal for sending multiple files via
XMLHttpRequest.send()" thread
started by Jian Li back in September.
As pointed out on that thread, sending a JS array of strings and File
references isn't going
to fly due to
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:10:43 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:13:23 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
If only a subset of the attributes ends up being used, i.e. appcache is
not going to dispatch progress events more often than one per file, I
do not think this fe
37 matches
Mail list logo
