https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17277
Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 5/30/12 9:03 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/30/12 2:05 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
How about session, which is guaranteed to go away when the
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
On 05/30/2012 07:38 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
1. position: center in section 6.1 refers to an Editor's Draft that is
not actively discussed at this time. Only normative references
should be made to CSS specs or the
On 6/1/12 10:34 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
If we go along the line we will have four methods on StorageInfo:
queryPersistentUsageAndQuota
queryTemporaryUsageAndQuota
requestPersistentQuota
We could also think of 'requestTemporaryQuota', a variant of
requestQuota, but by the
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:02:43 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
| If its specified 'position' is 'static', it computes to 'absolute'.
What if position is not specified?
Everything's specified.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specified-value
Other comments:
#
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug oyvi...@opera.com wrote:
4. layer and layer 10 in section 6.1 are unclear. Layer is used
nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be clarified.
This section also seems to assume that the list in CSS 2.1's appendix E is
for the
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
Everything's specified.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specified-value
Great!
Do you mean object-fit? I guess it would be nice for images to be
object-fit:contain in fullscreen. (Videos already are.)
Yup,
Makes sense, ok let's keep it. Then we will have symmetric four methods,
request and query for each type.
On Jun 1, 2012 6:17 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 6/1/12 10:34 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
If we go along the line we will have four methods on StorageInfo:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
There appears to be a consensus to use document.parse (which is fine with
me), so I would like to double-check which behavior we're picking. IMO,
the
On 5/31/12 5:23 PM, ext Adam Barth wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I don't recall anyone else committing to an implementation (although it
could be a bit early).
All - please speak up both on a) Adam's question; and b) the question in
the
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:15:24 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On 5/31/12 5:23 PM, ext Adam Barth wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I don't recall anyone else committing to an implementation (although it
could be a bit
On 31 May 2012, at 23:23, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I think people are just trying to work out what it does and if it
brings value to particular communities.
Having said that, the only other really big (i.e.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug oyvi...@opera.com wrote:
4. layer and layer 10 in section 6.1 are unclear. Layer is used
nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be
clarified.
This section also seems to
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:23, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I think people are just trying to work out what it does and if it
brings value to
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17262
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hi all,
First of all let me introduce myself. I work for Telefónica, I am based in
Madrid and I have recently joined the WebApps WG.
I find very interesting the proposal to specify a Web Apps manifest and thus it
is the first topic around which I want to start contributing to the group, even
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net
wrote:
| If its specified 'position' is 'static', it computes to 'absolute'.
What if position is not specified?
All elements have specified
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:29 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 5/30/12 11:14 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
* I guess the idea of
On 1 Jun 2012, at 12:15, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 5/31/12 5:23 PM, ext Adam Barth wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I don't recall anyone else committing to an implementation (although it could
be a bit early).
I'd be interested in
On 05/28/2012 04:03 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
The protocol spec has defined 1015, but I think we should not pass
through it to the WebSocket API.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0437.html
I think 1006 is the right code for all of WebSocket handshake failure,
TLS
On 1 Jun 2012, at 18:18, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:23, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specification?
I think people are
On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:50 PM, Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd be interested in implementing support for the JSON manifest format in
Apache Wookie/Apache Rave, but really want this to be properly harmonized
with the Widgets specs rather than a competing incompatible
--tobie
On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On 1 Jun 2012, at 18:18, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:23, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Is anyone
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:33:47 +0200, Jason Duell jduell.mcb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 05/28/2012 04:03 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
The protocol spec has defined 1015, but I think we should not pass
through it to the WebSocket API.
On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Marcos Caceres
w...@marcosc.commailto:w...@marcosc.com wrote:
Sounds good. AFAICT, Moz's proposal doesn't really cover packaging either ...
Not in the sense of wrapping the app using zip or something. More metadata,
feature control (potentially relevant to requiring
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Ian Hickson wrote:
I'm fine with making changes here. The following proposals seem to make
the most sense, though I'm sure others could work too:
2. Make the .source attribute be of type (MessagePort or WindowProxy)?
and add the port to .source, also leaving it
I'm currently implementing Pointer Lock [1] in WebKit, which was
adjusted recently to mimic Fullscreen [2].
The Fullscreen specification calls for events to be dispatched to the
document, but the WebKit implementation dispatches fullscreenchange
and fullscreenerror events to the context element
Response inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:06 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; ife...@google.com; Karl Dubost
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting
On
On 2/06/2012 11:19 a.m., Vincent Scheib wrote:
IMHO Pointer Lock would be more convenient to use if events are sent
to the target element as well, and not just the document.
Is there a reason the Fullscreen specification doesn't dispatch events
to the most relevant element?
Because we exit
On 06/01/2012 02:36 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com
mailto:w...@marcosc.com wrote:
Sounds good. AFAICT, Moz's proposal doesn't really cover packaging
either ... Not in the sense of wrapping the app using zip or
something. More metadata,
30 matches
Mail list logo
