Re: RfC: how to organize the DOM specs [Was: CfC: publish new WD of DOM Core]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote: > > > > Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest > > priority of our DOM-related specs and they have put considerable > > resources into that spec. Doug and Jacob will conti

Re: riks of the new clipboard operations API

On 9/5/11 10:49 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote: Le 6 sept. 2011 à 00:51, Glenn Maynard a écrit : On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht > wrote: Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page (e.g. flash advertisement 100% cpu) and I am c

Re: riks of the new clipboard operations API (was: Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5)

Le 6 sept. 2011 à 00:51, Glenn Maynard a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page (e.g. flash > advertisement 100% cpu) and I am confident they will not that some pages > mingle with their copy ability

[Bug 14037] Should XMLDocument be standardized?

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14037 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ann...@opera.com,

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote: > > I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe > the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far > as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of > things, where Internet Draf

Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page (e.g. > flash advertisement 100% cpu) and I am confident they will not that some > pages mingle with their copy ability or actually provide a service to do so. > Sorry, I'm h

Re: [DOM] Name

Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > > > > > On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >>> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Ar

Re: [DOM] Name

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >>> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >>> wrote: >>> >>> The

Re: [DOM] Name

On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >> >> The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> ... >> Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They >> love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable >> then the Editor's Draft. It's sim

Re: [DOM] Name

Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >>> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15

Re: [DOM] Name

Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >> >> The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was b

Re: RfC: how to organize the DOM specs [Was: CfC: publish new WD of DOM Core]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks for the comments and discussion! I finally reviewed all of the > responses and here are my thoughts on moving forward ... > > Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest priority of > our DOM-related spec

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

Hi Julian, On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > ... > > Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They > > love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable > > then the Edi

Re: [DOM] Name

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow > wrote: > > The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I will > proceed with a  request to publish a new WD of DOM C

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote: ... Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable then the Editor's Draft. It's simply nonsense, but the W3C Process document seems to codify this. bl

[Bug 13870] el.insertAdjacentHTML("beforebegin"/"afterend" broken when el.parentNode is a DocumentFragment

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13870 Ms2ger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [DOM] Name

Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD we publish a couple of weeks later). I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). Without hesitation, I concur. +1 Jarred It needs DO

Re: [DOM] Name

On 9/5/11 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard wrote: I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep "DOM" in the name given that everything it builds on did too. T

Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

Le 5 sept. 2011 à 16:50, Glenn Maynard a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen > wrote: > Pretty much everything in this spec can be abused to cause nuisance. > > Personally, I'm less than thrilled to see an API giving sites more ability to > mangle what I copy. Clipb

Re: [DOM] Name

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard wrote: I propose calling it "Web Core". WC1 (Web Core version 1). It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep "DOM" in the name given that everything it builds on did too. The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. All o

Re: [DOM3Events] CR

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:47:45 +0200, Doug Schepers wrote: On 9/4/11 9:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: I do not think that is appropriate given that unlike all our other specifications it does not use Web IDL DOM3 Events does provide Web IDL definitions for the interfaces [1]; it simply doesn

Re: Fwd: Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: > Pretty much everything in this spec can be abused to cause nuisance. Personally, I'm less than thrilled to see an API giving sites more ability to mangle what I copy. Clipboard hijacking scripts that add "read more at..." spam to co

[DOM] Extensibility

Please change the subject as appropriate. On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:49:02 +0200, Charles Pritchard wrote: It seems to me that the following section documents DOM Core's proposed improvements to DOM3Events: http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#dom-events It probably requires some updates at this poi

Re: [DOMCore] Extension specifications

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:14:06 +0200, Charles Pritchard wrote: Apologies, I've only recently caught up with tr/domcore. Glad you are reviewing! http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#exceptions Please review http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html as there have been significant c

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 13:47, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > On the contrary, but still supporting your point, as an implementer I always > reference editor's drafts as the authoritative source given they are most > up-to-date. This could be considered bad practice analogous to pulling WebKit

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > On Monday, September 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> Anyway, my point was just that Philippe's statement that an "editor's >> draft" has "no special status" is false, and I stand by this: editors' >> dr

Re: [DOM] Name

On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >>> The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I >>> will proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM

Re: Copy prevention... up-and-running

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:03:25 +0200, Paul Libbrecht wrote: While the discussion about preventing abuse in clipboards is happening, allow me to suggest something I recently found: In the page below is a fairly simple script that succeeds in preventing the user to select with the mouse, h

Copy prevention... up-and-running

While the discussion about preventing abuse in clipboards is happening, allow me to suggest something I recently found: In the page below is a fairly simple script that succeeds in preventing the user to select with the mouse, hence copy, in Firefox 6, Safari 5.1, and a few others. ht

Re: [Clipboard API] Copy to clipboard

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:47:28 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:14:10 +0200, João Eiras wrote: Hi ! The spec for setData [1] states that this method when calling from a cut/copy event sets new data on the clipboard. Unfortunately, this is insufficient to imple

Re: [Clipboard API] setData description

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:45:07 +0200, João Eiras wrote: Perhaps paste should be emphasized Will be :) -- Hallvord R. M. Steen, Core Tester, Opera Software http://www.opera.com http://my.opera.com/hallvors/

Re: Fwd: Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:14:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:13:35 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: As in and ? Yes. But this would apply to too of course; maybe they can become a blob URL or some such? Well, giving JS access to the clipboard's HTML will be

Re: [Clipboard API] Copy to clipboard

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:14:10 +0200, João Eiras wrote: Hi ! The spec for setData [1] states that this method when calling from a cut/copy event sets new data on the clipboard. Unfortunately, this is insufficient to implement the typical copy to clipboard button It is indeed. However, yo

Re: [Clipboard API] setData description

That second phrase is very confusing. Isn't it the objective of listening to cut/copy events, to possibly prevent the default action and set the data calling setData, therefore changing clipboard contents ? Yes, but not *paste* events. Pasting should never alter the data on the clipboar

Re: [Clipboard API] setData description

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 01:33:40 +0200, João Eiras wrote: The description for DataTransfer.setData [1] says: "Calling setData() from a paste event handler must not modify the data that is inserted, and must not modify the data on the clipboard." That second phrase is very confusing. Isn't it t

[Bug 12434] Spec doesn't match IE when calling insertAdjacentHTML with position afterend or beforebegin on head or body

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12434 Ms2ger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: Fwd: Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:13:35 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: As in and ? Yes. But this would apply to too of course; maybe they can become a blob URL or some such? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: Fwd: Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:44:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:47:08 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: Also, scripts shouldn't be able to call clearData() during copy/cut events, correct? Why not? Is it useful in any other context? It can be abused to prevent cop

Re: Fwd: Re: CfC: new WD of Clipboard API and Events; deadline April 5

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:47:08 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: Also, scripts shouldn't be able to call clearData() during copy/cut events, correct? Why not? Is it useful in any other context? It can be abused to prevent copy and paste from a site. But maybe there are other ways for that

Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1

Le 02/09/2011 15:32, Arthur Barstow a écrit : Cyril - unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume you are satisfied with the way your comments have been addressed: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/ Anne - assuming Cyril is agreeable with the way his comments were addressed, please