Re: Proposal to allow Transferables to be used in initMessageEvent
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:20:58 +0200, Luke Zarko za...@google.com wrote: void initMessageEvent(in DOMString typeArg, in boolean canBubbleArg, in boolean cancelableArg, in any dataArg, in DOMString originArg, in DOMString lastEventIdArg, in WindowProxy? sourceArg, in sequenceTransferable transferablesArg); Can we still remove initMessageEvent in favor of event constructors? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Rescinding the DOM 2 View Recommendation?
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:02:56 +0200, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote: After discussion with PLH and Ian Jacobs, and I don't think it's necessary for us to go through the additional overhead of rescinding the DOM 2 View specification. Instead, PLH and I support Anne's original proposal to simply update the status section of the spec to point people to the HTML5 spec. We could add wording like: [[ Updated definitions of the 'document' and 'defaultView' attributes are now defined by the HTML5 specification. Other concepts in this specification may not be necessary for implementation in general user agents such as Web browsers. ]] I don't object to rescinding it, I simply prefer the option with the least process necessary. This works for me and is actually what we decided back in 2009 as Working Group and back then Ian Jacobs said it was okay http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0454.html so I am glad this is acceptable again. Lets do it. Cheers, -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [XHR] support for streaming data
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:18:43 +0200, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 8/12/11 12:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Before we add yet another set of features, when are we going to attempt to get interoperability on the current feature set? Some time after adding another set of features, I'd imagine. This has always been the way of XHR. Really? In my experience there has not been much of an attempt to converge so far. We've got a pretty strong case for chunked array buffer as a -single- feature. Between Mozilla and WebKit, I'd imagine one of the vendors will implement this year. We'll see. I wrote a test suite of sorts for features prior to XMLHttpRequest Level 2, but so far it has seen little feedback. Also nobody has contributed tests for the new features added to XMLHttpRequest Level 2. Where's your test set from prior? I'm booked this month, but I'd be happy to pick it up next month. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/file/6631738fc83b/XMLHttpRequest/tests/submissions/Opera has my tests it seems. (Not sure why they were moved from their original location without someone telling me.) Feedback and/or new tests would be awesome, thanks! -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: DOM Mutation Events Replacement: When to deliver mutations
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:44:32 +0200, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote: Although everyone seems to agree that mutations should be delivered after the DOM operations which generated them complete, the question remains: When, exactly, should mutations be delivered? I created http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Modifications based on your email and the reply from Olli. It probably needs a bit more context. I will try to contact the relevant people at Opera to see if we have any input in the matter. From the perspective of the DOM specification option 2 would be easiest, but that is not really a good argument either way. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Proposal to allow Transferables to be used in initMessageEvent
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:20:58 +0200, Luke Zarko za...@google.com wrote: void initMessageEvent(in DOMString typeArg, in boolean canBubbleArg, in boolean cancelableArg, in any dataArg, in DOMString originArg, in DOMString lastEventIdArg, in WindowProxy? sourceArg, in sequenceTransferable transferablesArg); Can we still remove initMessageEvent in favor of event constructors? That's still my plan actually. Been busy dealing with other bugs though. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[Bug 13772] New: Example code should contain a comma instead of semicolon: worker.port.postMessage({ foo: 'structured', bar: ['data', 'also', 'possible']});
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13772
Summary: Example code should contain a comma instead of
semicolon: worker.port.postMessage({ foo:
'structured', bar: ['data', 'also', 'possible']});
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#sha
red-workers
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: Web Workers (editor: Ian Hickson)
AssignedTo: i...@hixie.ch
ReportedBy: contribu...@whatwg.org
QAContact: member-webapi-...@w3.org
CC: m...@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
Specification:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/workers.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#shared-workers
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#shared-workers
Comment:
Example code should contain a comma instead of semicolon:
worker.port.postMessage({ foo: 'structured', bar: ['data', 'also',
'possible']});
Posted from: 95.118.44.223
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0.1)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0.1
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
