On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/1/12 7:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> There was no good *reason* to be private by default
>
>
> Yes, there was. It makes it much simpler to author non-buggy components.
> Most component authors don't really contemplate how their cod
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 1, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> Hi
On Thu 1 Nov 2012, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
> I would like the "story" of event.char and event.key to be that
> event.char describes the generated character (if any) in its
> shifted/unshifted/modified/localized glory while event.key describes
> the key (perhaps on a best-effort basis, but in a
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:57:38 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things?
B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into
my copy
I am not aware of any changes nor impending
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19878
Priority: P2
Bug ID: 19878
CC: kr...@microsoft.com, m...@w3.org,
public-webapps@w3.org
Assignee: dave.n...@w3.org
Summary: Revert change in Close-reason-unpaired-surr
On 11/6/12 3:23 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things?
A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification
Unlikely.
My expectation is that public-webapps will continue to be one venue for
comments
On 11/6/12 3:46 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
the W3C does not generally give credit where credit is due.
This issue has been bothering me for a while, so thanks for raising it.
I agree proper attribution is a problem that needs to be addressed in
the WG's versions of these specs (URL, DOM4, e
On 6 November 2012 09:46, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> >
> > Could be slightly more formal?
> > You are speaking of "hypocrisy" but this seems like a matter of
> politeness, right?
>
> I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only
> appl
On 2012-11-06 09:28, Sergey Nikitin wrote:
On 05.11.2012, at 16:28, Julian Reschke wrote:
Yes. Exactly.
It's not about offline apps, it's about reducing loading time.
There's already the "prefetch" link relation that you could use.
You need at least two pages to start prefetching.
Why
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
>
> Could be slightly more formal?
> You are speaking of "hypocrisy" but this seems like a matter of politeness,
> right?
I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only
applies those values to other people, not to itself. Specific
Ian,
Could be slightly more formal?
You are speaking of "hypocrisy" but this seems like a matter of politeness,
right?
Or are you actually claiming that there's a license breach?
That there are different mechanisms at WHATWG and W3C is not really new.
Paul
Le 6 nov. 2012 à 02:42, Ian Hickson a
On 05.11.2012, at 16:28, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Exactly.
>> It's not about offline apps, it's about reducing loading time.
>
> There's already the "prefetch" link relation that you could use.
>
You need at least two pages to start prefetching.
And you can't prefetch anything for the
On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things?
A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification
Unlikely.
B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into my copy
Definitely not.
HTH
Ms2ger
13 matches
Mail list logo
