Re: A proposal for Element constructors

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Kentaro Hara wrote: > Thanks, all! > > Adam: > > Another solution to that "more than one tag per interface" problem is> to > introduce subclasses of those interfaces for each tag. > I agree. "new HTMLInsElement()" is more consistent with other Element > constructo

Re: A proposal for Element constructors

Thanks, all! Adam: > Another solution to that "more than one tag per interface" problem is> to > introduce subclasses of those interfaces for each tag. I agree. "new HTMLInsElement()" is more consistent with other Element constructors than "new HTMLModificationElement( {tagName: 'ins'} )". Rick

Re: [indexeddb] DOM Level 4 Exceptions and Error updates to IDB spec

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > Based on the feedback from Jonas, Cameron, and Anne, we updated the exception > and error model in the IndexedDB spec [1].  Now, we match the DOM Level 4 > events and error models. > > The IDBDatabaseException interface was replaced with

Re: [IndexedDB] Handling missing/invalid values for indexes

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2011 10:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Currently the spec is somewhat inconsistent in how it deals with having an >> index on a property, and then inserting an object in an object store which is >> either

Re: [IndexedDB] IDBObjectStore.delete should accept a KeyRange

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:35 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: >>On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: >>>On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: While I was there it did occur to me that the fact t

Re: Is BlobBuilder needed?

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >>> The new API is smaller and simpler. Less to implement and less for web >>> developers to understand. If it can meet all our u

[Bug 13686] Remove the special case from onmessage (to call start())

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13686 Jacob Rossi [MSFT] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFI

RE: [IndexedDB] Handling missing/invalid values for indexes

On Monday, October 17, 2011 10:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hi All, > > Currently the spec is somewhat inconsistent in how it deals with having an > index on a property, and then inserting an object in an object store which is > either missing that property, or has the property but with a value w

[Bug 14530] Hi, In Server-Sent Events Section "Processing model", it should be clearly stated how to avoid the pipelining of HTTP requests on the connection used for an event source. HTTP pipelining

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14530 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: Is BlobBuilder needed?

var b = new Blob([foo, bar], { contentType: "text/plain" }); This is really nice looking and feeling. Options objects are definitely a win /rw On Oct 26, 2011 7:17 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > O

RE: [indexeddb] Implicit Transaction Request associated with failed transactions

On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio > wrote: > > On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Israel Hilerio > wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:01 AM, Jonas Sick

[Bug 13686] Remove the special case from onmessage (to call start())

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13686 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 13786] Drop the charset parameter or made it non-conforming. Other MIME types introduced by this specification do not allow the charset parameter.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13786 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: [IndexedDB] IDBObjectStore.delete should accept a KeyRange

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio > wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> > >> > While I was there it did occur to me that the fact that the .delete >> > function >> > "returns" (through reques

Re: Is BlobBuilder needed?

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> The new API is smaller and simpler. Less to implement and less for web >> developers to understand. If it can meet all our use-cases without >> significant performance problems, then i

Re: A proposal for Element constructors

As a developer that writes JavaScript every single day, the sheer amount of typed characters required for using the constructors in this proposal is enough for me to avoid it at all costs. On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Kentaro Hara wrote: > Hi folks, > > * Background * > > I have been work

Re: A proposal for Element constructors

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > On 25/10/11 8:54 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> Another solution to that "more than one tag per interface" problem is >> to introduce subclasses of those interfaces for each tag. >> > > Instead of introducing more interfaces (which don't hav

[Bug 13930] Refer to rniwa's undo/redo spec

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13930 Aryeh Gregor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: >> e.findAll("div, :scope") // 0,context,1,2,3,4,5,6 > > Huh, why 0 and 6? What's the logic there? I would have expected it to > be a sorted union of the results returned from the individu

Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Your guesses are all right in terms of existing jQuery but one: > 'div': [1, 2, 3, 4] > '': [] > '#3': [3] > '> div': [1, 2, 3] > '[foo=bar]': [] > '[id=1]': [1] > ':first-child': [1, 4] > '+ div': [5] > '~ div': [5, 6] Ah, yes, sounds good.

Re: A proposal for Element constructors

On 25/10/11 8:54 PM, Adam Barth wrote: Another solution to that "more than one tag per interface" problem is to introduce subclasses of those interfaces for each tag. Instead of introducing more interfaces (which don't have additional functionality), and instead of introducing Element.create,

[Bug 13841] Investigate what should happen when hitting Enter inside nested single-line containers

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13841 Aryeh Gregor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[indexeddb] DOM Level 4 Exceptions and Error updates to IDB spec

Based on the feedback from Jonas, Cameron, and Anne, we updated the exception and error model in the IndexedDB spec [1].  Now, we match the DOM Level 4 events and error models. The IDBDatabaseException interface was replaced with DOMException.  The const error codes were replace with error type

RE: [IndexedDB] IDBObjectStore.delete should accept a KeyRange

On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:35 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: >On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: >>On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>> While I was there it did occur to me that the fact that the .delete >>> function "returns" (through request.result

Re: [IndexedDB] IDBObjectStore.delete should accept a KeyRange

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > While I was there it did occur to me that the fact that the .delete > function > > "returns" (through request.result in the async API) true/false depending > on if > > any rec

Re: A proposal for Element constructors

This proposal sounds very interesting. On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > Another solution to that "more than one tag per interface" problem is > to introduce subclasses of those interfaces for each tag. +1 Julien

Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

Yeah, I have to agree with the list here. If you allow one its unintuitive to not allow it the same way in a group. The more exceptions and complexity you add, the harder it is for someone to learn. On Oct 25, 2011 10:16 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: > * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 2

Re: AW: AW: AW: WebSocket API: close and error events

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Tobias Oberstein wrote: >> Generally speaking, we don't want to show certificate errors for subresource >> loads (including WebSocket connections) because the user has no context >> for making a reasonable security decision.  For example, Chrome doesn't let >> the

AW: AW: AW: AW: WebSocket API: close and error events

> Generally speaking, we don't want to show certificate errors for subresource > loads (including WebSocket connections) because the user has no context > for making a reasonable security decision. For example, Chrome doesn't let > the user click through certificate errors for images or iframes.