Re: Enabling a Web app to override auto rotation?

In case it's needed; use case: User is drawing a sketch on their mobile phone and their rotation is intentional as if they are working with a physical piece of paper. -Charles On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > There's no current spec for this, but it's on our plate: > > ht

Re: Enabling a Web app to override auto rotation?

Tobie Langel , 2012-02-08 07:17 +: > There's no current spec for this, but it's on our plate: > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges#Additions_Agreed Thanks for the link and I see that links to mail from Robin a week ago. Now embarrassed that I'm not caught up on my public-we

Re: Enabling a Web app to override auto rotation?

There's no current spec for this, but it's on our plate: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges#Additions_Agreed --tobie On 2/8/12 3:06 AM, "Michael[tm] Smith" wrote: >About portrait-landscape auto rotation on current mobile/tablet >browsers/platforms: If a user has auto rotation

Enabling a Web app to override auto rotation?

About portrait-landscape auto rotation on current mobile/tablet browsers/platforms: If a user has auto rotation set on their mobile or tablet, I know it's possible for a particular native application to override that setting and stay in whatever screen orientation it wants. My question is if it is

Re: Overhauling Pointer Lock (was Mouse Lock) to FullScreen API pattern

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Vincent Scheib wrote: > > Pointer lock spec[1] has been updated as I described, with the exception > of > > allowpointerlock which still needs to be added. > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/defaul

Re: Overhauling Pointer Lock (was Mouse Lock) to FullScreen API pattern

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Vincent Scheib wrote: > Pointer lock spec[1] has been updated as I described, with the exception of > allowpointerlock which still needs to be added. > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/default/index.html > > Feedback welcome. What's the purpose of the 'po

Re: April face-to-face meetings for WebApps

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow < >> art.bars...@nokia.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I am especially

Re: April face-to-face meetings for WebApps

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren > wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow < > art.bars...@nokia.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> I am especially interested in whether Editors and Test > >> Facilitators/Cont

Re: Installing web apps

On 7/2/12 05:31 , Robin Berjon wrote: The first problem is that of the security model. A lot of smart people have tried to come up with a lot of different solutions here, often involving signatures, policies, intricate user interfaces, etc. I think that's all massively over-engineered. Once yo

Re: Concerns regarding cross-origin copy/paste security

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: > On Thu, 05 May 2011 06:46:55 +0900, Daniel Cheng > wrote: > >> There was a recent discussion involving directly exposing the HTML >> fragment >> in a paste to a page, since we're doing the parsing anyway for security >> reasons. I hav

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

On 2/7/12 3:25 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: Oh, like

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > On Tue Feb 07 11:41:24 GMT-800 2012, Dimitri Glazkov > wrote: >> >> The pros are: >> * It's declarative and intuitively logical > > > I think this is a cons. Now you need both markup and code where you only had > code before. > > This also

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/7/12 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >> >>     >>         // "this" is the parent div element. >>         // "event" is the current event object. >>         if (event.target.className != 'more') >>             return; >>         if

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

What about conflict with existing specification rules? http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-script-element - under #12, limits the use of event and for attributes to load and window respectively. Rick On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/7/12 2:41 PM, Dimit

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

On 2/7/12 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: // "this" is the parent div element. // "event" is the current event object. if (event.target.className != 'more') return; if (this.moreOpened) this.closeMore(); ... Thi

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > Folks, > > To make Web Components more usable, I would like to consider providing > a way to declare event handlers in markup. As I look over the use > cases and try to implement them using the proposed syntax > (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcom

[webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

Folks, To make Web Components more usable, I would like to consider providing a way to declare event handlers in markup. As I look over the use cases and try to implement them using the proposed syntax (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html), a pattern emerges, wher

Re: Overhauling Pointer Lock (was Mouse Lock) to FullScreen API pattern

Pointer lock spec[1] has been updated as I described, with the exception of allowpointerlock which still needs to be added. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/default/index.html Feedback welcome. On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote: > The spec for Pointer Lock has been

Re: April face-to-face meetings for WebApps

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow > wrote: >> >> I am especially interested in whether Editors and Test >> Facilitators/Contributors will attend. > > > Highly likely I'll attend. Me too. :DG<

Re: Installing web apps

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > Hi all, > > On Feb 1, 2012, at 17:42 , Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >> On 2012-01 -20, at 14:32, Ian Hickson wrote >>> Personally I think the idea of "installing" a Web app is anathema. >> >> You may, but others have a need for it. > > This is a hot

[Bug 15927] New: [IndexedDB] Allowing "." and " " in keys specified using keyPath

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15927 Summary: [IndexedDB] Allowing "." and " " in keys specified using keyPath Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW

Re: Installing web apps

On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:16 , Scott Wilson wrote: > The issue of 'trusted web applications" has also come up before in this > context also, see Robin's blog post: > > http://berjon.com/blog/2011/02/harmful-trust.html Please read that with a pinch of salt. It's my thinking from a year ago, and quit

Back to XHR errors (was Re: Installing web apps)

[-www-tag] Hi Tim, On Feb 1, 2012, at 22:04 , Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > I want to argue for XMLHTTPRequest > being designed to be able to be used not only in an untrusted web page, > but e.g. from an installed widget, or node.js for that matter, > which means returning a defined error response wh

Re: April face-to-face meetings for WebApps

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:55:59 +0100, Arthur Barstow wrote: I am especially interested in whether Editors and Test Facilitators/Contributors will attend. Highly likely I'll attend. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: Installing web apps

Hi all, On Feb 1, 2012, at 17:42 , Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > On 2012-01 -20, at 14:32, Ian Hickson wrote >> Personally I think the idea of "installing" a Web app is anathema. > > You may, but others have a need for it. This is a hot topic, and I'm happy to see it openly broached here. That said,

Re: April face-to-face meetings for WebApps

[ - public-html ] WebApp'ers - if there are any objections or non-resolvable conflicts with WebApps meeting April 10-11 please speak up as soon as possible. To get at least a rough idea regarding who would attend the meeting, if there is a relatively high priority you will attend, please let

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Socket API; comment deadline October 21

Julian Reschke , 2012-02-01 12:25 +0100: > On 2012-01-03 13:39, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >On 12/29/11 8:48 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote: > >>I note that > >> > >>claims this was addressed but it was not. > >> > >>(In the meantime

[Bug 13700] W3C SotD of this document still mentions whatwg.org version of the WebSocket protocol which is out of date.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13700 Michael[tm] Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

CSS Device Adaption and Fullscreen

Hi there, The CSS Device Adaption spec has a good method for deciding how to control the viewport of the main frame. A good question is how this should relate to subframe and elements going fullscreen. One way would be to inherit the viewport of the main frame, but I wonder whether this covers th