[Bug 16596] Clarify how upgradeneeded works in the .open function

2013-01-25 Thread bugzilla 
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16596

Eliot Graff  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

--- Comment #1 from Eliot Graff  ---
The spec already refers to this:

The method then queues up an operation to run the steps for opening a
database.

In 4.8, step 9.2 is specific.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Re: [fullscreen-api] Allowing AJAX requests when in fullscreen mode

2013-01-25 Thread Ian Hickson 
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Adam Sobaniec  wrote:
> > I have made a more detailed test. It's not AJAX itself that breaks the
> > fullscreen mode, but it's History API that is the main cause of problem. In
> > my case, I have a web app that goes fullscreen and when I click on a link
> > there is being pushed new state to history and an url is being modified.
> > When it happens, Chrome is exiting fullscreen mode, while FF behaves as I'm
> > expecting it to behave.
> >
> > I will try to file a ticket for Chrome.
> 
> Ah, there is a requirement to the effect that when navigating, you
> exit fullscreen. Maybe we should restrict that to cross-origin
> navigation.
> 
> Ian, other Adam, thoughts?

The history API doesn't involve navigation, unless I misunderstood the 
question.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

2013-01-25 Thread Tobie Langel 
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:24 PM, "Odin Hørthe Omdal"  wrote:

> Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process [Testing], 
>> please make a clear proposal regarding the submission process, approval 
>> process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and its references. (My 
>> preference is for you to document the new process, expectations, etc. in 
>> WebApps' Public wiki, rooted at ).
> 
> I've written (well, copied and changed) a document at:
> 
>http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Submitting_tests
> 
> It might not have everything required right now, but I think it's a good 
> start. :-)

This is awesome. Thanks for writing it.

--tobie

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

2013-01-25 Thread Tobie Langel 
> FWIW that looks good to me. At risk of bikeshedding, I think that calling a 
> repo with tests for non-HTML specs "html-testsuite" is confusing and will 
> make the repository harder to find, especially since the people who are aware 
> that html is not a catch-all term are also the people most likely to be 
> writing tests. Some more generic name like "web-platform-testsuite" seems 
> better.

Couldn't agree more.

--tobie

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

2013-01-25 Thread James Graham 

On 01/24/2013 07:22 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:

Arthur Barstow wrote:

Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process
[Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission
process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and
its references. (My preference is for you to document the new process,
expectations, etc. in WebApps' Public wiki, rooted at
).


I've written (well, copied and changed) a document at:

 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Submitting_tests

It might not have everything required right now, but I think it's a good
start. :-)


FWIW that looks good to me. At risk of bikeshedding, I think that 
calling a repo with tests for non-HTML specs "html-testsuite" is 
confusing and will make the repository harder to find, especially since 
the people who are aware that html is not a catch-all term are also the 
people most likely to be writing tests. Some more generic name like 
"web-platform-testsuite" seems better.