RE: New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

2011-09-13 Thread Israel Hilerio
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:27 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: > Today we shipped Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 Platform Preview 3 as part of > the Windows 8 Developer Preview. Alongside this release, we have submitted > interop tests for several WebApps specs for review by the working group: > >

New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

2011-09-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
Today we shipped Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 Platform Preview 3 as part of the Windows 8 Developer Preview. Alongside this release, we have submitted interop tests for several WebApps specs for review by the working group: WebSockets API (101 tests/assertions) Changeset: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg

cross origin workers [was Re: [workers] Moving the Web Workers spec back to Last Call WD]

2011-09-13 Thread David Levin
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > > > Regarding re-publishing the Web Workers spec [ED] as a new Last Call > > Working Draft ... > > > > Bugzilla shows one open bug [Bugs]: > > > > 11818 - As documented in the "Creating workers"

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

2011-09-13 Thread Ojan Vafai
I support this. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > I think it's a great idea to get your spec more attention in W3C community > specially because some UA vendors don't participate in discussions on > whatwg. > > - Ryosuke > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Aryeh Gregor wro

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

2011-09-13 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
I think it's a great idea to get your spec more attention in W3C community specially because some UA vendors don't participate in discussions on whatwg. - Ryosuke On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, > which I

[editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

2011-09-13 Thread Aryeh Gregor
For the last several months, I was working on a new specification, which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group at the W3C to host it: http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html http://www.w3.org/community/editing/ Things are still being worked out, but one issue is wha

[Bug 14144] New: Adding link to resolve the URL

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14144 Summary: Adding link to resolve the URL Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2

Re: RfC: LCWD of Touch Events version 1; deadline October 11

2011-09-13 Thread Charles Pritchard
On 9/13/2011 11:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:32:03 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: On September 13, the Web Events WG published a LCWD of the Touch Events version 1 spec: Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback directly to the Web Events WG. I

Re: RfC: LCWD of Touch Events version 1; deadline October 11

2011-09-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:32:03 +0200, Arthur Barstow wrote: On September 13, the Web Events WG published a LCWD of the Touch Events version 1 spec: Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback directly to the Web Events WG. If you have comments, please send them to the

RfC: LCWD of Touch Events version 1; deadline October 11

2011-09-13 Thread Arthur Barstow
On September 13, the Web Events WG published a LCWD of the Touch Events version 1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-Touch-Events-20110913/ That WG explicitly asked the WebApps WG for comments. Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback directly to the Web Events WG

[Bug 14093] Just to throw out an idea, to allow use of the XML parser, and alert() for debugging, one could implement web workers as simply another open page in the browser, with full access to the

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14093 Simon Pieters changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Simon Pie

[Bug 14138] Lastly, to make clear. I am not proposing web workers share the DOM with the main thread. I am proposing the each web worker has it's own INDEPENDENT DOM. (No sharing of memory or DOM

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14138 Simon Pieters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 14137] Just want to add - don't get hung up on the process/thread stuff. It is just a metaphor. I don't really care how it is implemented. One could do it all in one process. The present de

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14137 Simon Pieters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 14116] Regarding a previous post, a browser could launch itself (CreateProcess() on Windows) again and pass say a port number, a URL, and a boolean flag to the spawned child process. The browse

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14116 Simon Pieters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 14138] New: Lastly, to make clear. I am not proposing web workers share the DOM with the main thread. I am proposing the each web worker has it's own INDEPENDENT DOM. (No sharing of memory o

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14138 Summary: Lastly, to make clear. I am not proposing web workers share the DOM with the main thread. I am proposing the each web worker has it's own INDEPENDENT DOM. (No shar

[Bug 14137] New: Just want to add - don't get hung up on the process/thread stuff. It is just a metaphor. I don't really care how it is implemented. One could do it all in one process. The prese

2011-09-13 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14137 Summary: Just want to add - don't get hung up on the process/thread stuff. It is just a metaphor. I don't really care how it is implemented. One could do it all in one proc