On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:49:28 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Test suite is pretty much finished (I have a few things left to clean
up and need to put it on w3c-test.org now that it accepts PHP):
I think I will postpone doing this. It only
Hi Ben,
Le vendredi 25 février 2011 à 14:04 +, Ben Laurie a écrit :
As part of a European research project I'm involved in [1], I've
compiled a report on the existing technologies in development (or in
discussion) at W3C for building Web applications and that are
particularly relevant
(trimming CC)
Hi Somnath,
Le samedi 26 février 2011 à 12:45 +0530, Somnath Chandra a écrit :
This document is an excellent document. It gives present state-of-the
art and roadmap ahead for development of Mobile Web.
Implementation of Mobile Web with South Asian complex scripts is a
Hi Paul,
Le vendredi 25 février 2011 à 16:53 +0100, Paul Libbrecht a écrit :
I definitely agree this is a useful deliverable; I wish more EU
projects be as careful in their survey as that!
Thanks!
I was looking to see if MathML was mentioned (I think it should as a
future technology but it
Hi Dom,
On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Hi Ben,
Le vendredi 25 février 2011 à 14:04 +, Ben Laurie a écrit :
As part of a European research project I'm involved in [1], I've
compiled a report on the existing technologies in development (or in
discussion)
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Last Call Working
Draft of the HTML5 Web Messaging spec based on the following version of
the spec (copied from ED version 1.77):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/publish/LCWD-webmessaging-201103TBD.html
This CfC satisfies the group's
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The test suite seems very short for the spec... in particular, it
doesn't seem to test the parsing of the event format very well.
Anything in particular you think needs testing?
Zero, one or two BOMs before an event.
Parsing of comments
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11567
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12261
Summary: Update cursor API
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
Now that ArrayBuffer has made its way into XHR, I think it would be reasonable
to somehow use this new object type as a way to pass data to and from Workers
without copying. I've seen hints and thoughts about this here and there, but
I've never seen a formal discussion. I'm not even sure if
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
Now that ArrayBuffer has made its way into XHR, I think it would be
reasonable to somehow use this new object type as a way to pass data to and
from Workers without copying. I've seen hints and thoughts about this here
and
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12114
Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12016
Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11375
Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12261
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11747
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
Now that ArrayBuffer has made its way into XHR, I think it would be
reasonable to somehow use this
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
Probably not the only one, but check the WebWorkers and images thread
on whatwg.
Yeah, I thought about that case. The extra complication there is that
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
Now that ArrayBuffer has made
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 3/7/11 8:55 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'd expect CanvasPixelArray to allow optimizations that ArrayBuffer
doesn't, since the implementation can use the native surface format,
translating to RGBA for the script
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11528
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11351
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9796
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11553
Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11164
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
Hi Jonas
I have been trying out your suggestion of using a separate object store to
do manual indexing (and so support compound indexes or index object
properties with arrays as values).
There are some problems with this
As far as I recall, we never settled on how key path should be specified.
Right now in Chrome, we allow any combination of .'s and static array
lookups. So, for example, we allow foo.bar[1][2].baz. I don't remember
any specific use cases for the array lookups though, so I'm wondering if we
On 08 Mar 2011, at 7:23 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
This doesn't seem right. Assuming your WebSQL implementation had all the same
indexes isn't it doing pretty much the same things as using separate
objectStores in IDB? Why would it be an order of magnitude slower? I'm sure
whatever
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Compound primary keys are commonly used afaik.
Indeed. It's one of
29 matches
Mail list logo
