On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:31:26 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Actually, applying p {margin:0} looks quite trivial.
The problem is that many existing contents don't have that css rule and
we obviously don't want to create markup like p style=margin: 0px;
for it is too verbose.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:39:48 +0100, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
p has default margins. That alone is enough for us not to adopt p as
the default paragraph separator.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Simon Pieters
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us wrote:
On 1/11/2012 12:27 PM, Eric U wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be impossible to
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15532
Summary: Collapsing or extending to a ProcessingInstruction
should be OK
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
URL:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15533
Summary: Index check in selection.extend() should be done
before node type test.
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.comwrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:31:26 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Actually, applying p {margin:0} looks quite trivial.
The problem is that many existing contents don't have that css rule and
we obviously
Side-effects of event registration are outside of the DOM event model. UAs
can do whatever transparent optimizations they want, of course, but APIs
shouldn't *depend* on that for efficient implementations.
Occasional polling definitely has significant overhead (directories may
have tens of
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15532
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hi, folks-
On 1/11/12 9:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 1/10/12 11:25 AM, ext Glen Shires wrote:
Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like
to see at this point?
At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like if/when the spec advances to
Candidate Recommendation, we
What does document.implementation.createHTMLDocument().getSelection() return?
* IE9 returns a Selection object unique to that document.
* Firefox 12.0a1 and Opera Next 12.00 alpha return the same thing as
document.getSelection().
* Chrome 17 dev returns null.
I prefer IE's behavior just for the
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
The reason is listed in WCAG2 section 2.1.2 and CR5.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/
The items suggest that a standard means of moving focus be maintained. Users
should be given simple instructions on how to move focus if
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
The reason is listed in WCAG2 section 2.1.2 and CR5.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/
The items suggest that a standard means of moving focus be maintained.
On 1/12/12 11:06 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, folks-
On 1/11/12 9:40 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 1/10/12 11:25 AM, ext Glen Shires wrote:
Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like
to see at this point?
At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like if/when the
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct behavior in all cases.
Do you mean this one?
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15533
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct
On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's even more
important if File objects are stored in History or IndexedDB; that it should
be a
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com
wrote:
On 1/12/2012 12:30 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@visc.us wrote:
On 1/11/2012 12:27 PM, Eric U wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This isn't
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
I don't see it being a particularly bad thing if vendors expose more
translation encodings. I've only come across one project that would use
them. Binary and utf8 handle everything else I've come across, and I can use
On 1/12/2012 6:34 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Side-effects of event registration are outside of the DOM event
model. UAs can do whatever transparent optimizations they want, of
course, but APIs shouldn't *depend* on that for efficient
implementations.
Occasional polling definitely has
That's not good enough for many use cases. For example, a notepad app that
saves to disk wants to update the display if another program modifies the
file. You don't want that to be delayed until you scan the directory; you
want the event pushed at you immediately when it happens. This is how I
On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On
I've made the point a few times now, and would appreciate a response.
Why are we preferring to seed WebApps speech with [2] when we already
have [3] that represents industry consensus as of a month ago (Google
not withstanding)? Proceeding with [2] would almost surely delay the
resulting
On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org
wrote:
FYI, I don't think this is clear for File from the spec. It's
even
more important if File objects are stored in History or
IndexedDB;
On 1/12/12 12:53 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com
mailto:m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org
mailto:gl...@zewt.org wrote:
FYI, I don't think this is clear for
I don't follow. Either the user always has to poll the Entry to trigger
the event, or you never have to. The former defeats the purpose of having
an event (optimized by OS change notifications, low-overhead and
instantaneous); the latter may not be possible (NFS). You can't have a web
API where
(Sorry if reply got posted twice, my mail app messed up formatting the
first time)
Milan,
It looks like we agree on several things:
* That we'd like to see the JavaScript Speech API included in the
WebApps' charter.
* That we believe the wire protocol is best suited for another
Milan,
It looks like we fundamentally agree on several things:
* That we'd like to see the JavaScript Speech API included in the
WebApps' charter.* That we believe the wire protocol is best suited
for another organization, such as IETF.* That we believe the markup
bindings may be excluded.
Our
On 1/12/2012 10:03 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
I don't see it being a particularly bad thing if vendors expose more
translation encodings. I've only come across one project that would use
them. Binary and utf8 handle
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
Probably a stupid question, but one I've always wanted to ask: couldn't we
default to a different, smaller, possibly 0 margin for P when in editable
content?
As Markus says: it breaks WYSIWYG. The idea of
Can you do anything useful with a selection on a document that doesn't have
a window? If so, the IE9 behavior makes sense. If not, I prefer the WebKit
behavior.
For phrasing it, could you define it in terms of document.defaultView? In
other words that document.getSelection is just return
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14985
Israel Hilerio [MSFT] isra...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:58:58 +0100, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
What does document.implementation.createHTMLDocument().getSelection()
return?
* IE9 returns a Selection object unique to that document.
* Firefox 12.0a1 and Opera Next 12.00 alpha return the same thing as
34 matches
Mail list logo
