On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:26:30 +0200, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
WebWorkers (51 tests/assertions)
Changeset: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/rev/7b0ba70f69b6
Tests: http://w3c-test.org/webapps/Workers/tests/submissions/Microsoft/
Worker_dispatchEvent_ErrorEvent.htm tests the
Hi all,
there have been two primary proposals for a Discovery API that would enable web
pages to (shockingly enough) discover services (on the device, the local
network, or possibly remote) through common mechanisms such as DNS-SD or UPnP.
One of them comes from Opera:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation
but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of
the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title)
transient, so
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14220
Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
http://groups.google.com/group/web-intents/browse_thread/thread/3dff7c2cdf5815b8
I tend to agree with rolling this in to RCH and RPH and seeing if we
could refine the
Yesterday, Hixie checked in a fix for 13777.
Bug 13104 (Enable keepalive on WebSocket API) was closed (WontFix) but
reopened on September 18. Since various group members agree with not
addressing this bug for v1, I will proceed with a CfC to publish a LC of
the Web Socket API. (Perhaps this
Reminder: September 27 is the deadline for comments for this LCWD. The
open bug list is:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWGcomponent=Web%20Storage%20%28editor%3A%20Ian%20Hickson%29resolution=---
Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Web
Reminder: September 27 is the deadline for comments for this LCWD. The
open bug list is:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWGcomponent=Web%20Workers%20%28editor%3A%20Ian%20Hickson%29resolution=---
Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Web
With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new
working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead
of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi
Hi Ian,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:04 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new
working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead of
creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the
WG you mention is just as high, especially when there's no indication that a
number of browsers intend to join that group. I don't think it's a random
process question, I think it's rather fundamental issue. If we agree
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the WG
you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases
here:
• You have IP concerns relevant to
On 9/20/2011 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the WG
you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation
but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of
the Landscape
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue
here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps
take over Intents. Since it isn't in WebApps's deliverables,
On 9/20/2011 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue
here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps
take over Intents.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the
issue here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com
(mailto:ro...@berjon.com) wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com (mailto:
ro...@berjon.com) wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 ,
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get
any attention from a party that's clearly relevant only to have patents
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get
Thanks! We'll see about getting these updated...
From: David Levin [mailto:le...@google.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:33 PM
To: Adrian Bateman
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org); Israel Hilerio;
Travis Leithead; Brian Raymor; Kris Krueger
Subject: Re: New
Hi Ian,
Here are some answers, I have worked closely with the team on getting this
ready so if I miss anything out they will be able to fill in the blanks.
Q: Why are the verbs URLs?
Verbs don't have to be URL's but a URL will allow us a point of reference to
documentation, versioning and
Hi Robin,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join
the WG you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead
Microsoft supports this call.
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Socket API using the following document as the basis:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
As noted in [1], this spec
HI Ian,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 19:38 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
Why do we need to recharter? I don't get the point of having a WG that has to
recharter every single time that we develop a new API.
I can't begin to tell you how sympathetic I am to this feeling, and the
frustration that goes
* Ian Fette wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the
WG you mention is just as high, especially when there's no indication that a
number of browsers intend to join that group. I don't think it's a random
process question, I think it's rather fundamental
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/23/11 6:14 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 5/23/11 1:20 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
To close the loop a bit here, Firefox 6 will make the change to
FileReader.abort()'s throwing behavior agreed upon here.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Rich Tibbett wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
http://groups.google.com/group/web-intents/browse_thread/thread/3dff7c2cdf5815b8
I tend to agree with rolling this in to RCH and
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/23/11 6:14 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On 5/23/11 1:20 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
To close the loop a bit here, Firefox 6 will make the change to
Context: Last week some Bay Area/visiting Bay Area browser hackers met
to discuss the component model
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model This is my unedited
transcript. I am not much of a stenographer so no doubt there are
gaps.
Cast of characters:
boris--Boris Zbarsky
dg--Dimitri
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/23/11 6:14 PM,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
I have a read running, and at some point I abort it--it could be in
onprogress or elsewhere. In onabort I start another read. In
onloadstart I abort again. Repeat as many times as you like, then let
a read complete. I believe
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
I have a read running, and at some point I abort it--it could be in
onprogress or elsewhere. In onabort I start another read. In
onloadstart I abort again.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
I have a read running, and at some point I abort it--it could be in
onprogress or
Some comments inline - I hope they don't get lost.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Rich Tibbett wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
A comment on use cases that was brought up over here.
There's a use case that is not addressed by XBL1 and impossible to quite
address in a JS library that goes as follows. Say you have some data in
a table. Semantically it's a data table. But you may want to present
it as a graphic (SVG
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 19:47, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
A comment on use cases that was brought up over here.
There's a use case that is not addressed by XBL1 and impossible to quite
address in a JS library that goes as follows. Say you have some data in a
table. Semantically
On 9/20/11 11:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
I think this is properly a CSS issue. You want an element to not
exist in the box tree, but to still have its children in the tree,
which should be controllable with a display value, perhaps called
'transparent'.
I believe that would be an acceptable
39 matches
Mail list logo
