On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Reitbauer, Alois
alois.reitba...@compuware.com wrote:
The conversations this week were very helpful in deciding how to move
forward. I second Jatinder's idea that we come up with a specification that
describes in details what we need. We should also treat it
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right,
Anne?
Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end of the day.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14694#c7
So
I'll be updating the document this week. I'll send an update to the list
after that happens.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote:
Any progress on the speccing of queryKeyCap?
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Gary Kacmarcik (Кошмарчик)
gary...@chromium.org
From my perspective the point is that we should rather have a clear(er)
definition of what we need, rather than starting to see how it fits into
existing specs. Having this initial spec it will be also easier to decide
about the actual fit into XHR or PING
// Alois
On 2/18/13 10:19 AM, Anne van
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Reitbauer, Alois
alois.reitba...@compuware.com wrote:
From my perspective the point is that we should rather have a clear(er)
definition of what we need, rather than starting to see how it fits into
existing specs. Having this initial spec it will be also easier
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19470
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
We were thinking of adding innerHTML to DocumentFragments anyway... right,
Anne?
Well I thought so, but that plan didn't work out at the end
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
So given that consensus still putting it on ShadowRoot strikes me like
a bad idea (as I think I've said somewhere in a bug). The same goes
for
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Buchner dan...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'm not sure I buy the idea that two ways of doing the same thing does not
seem like a good approach - the web platform's imperative and declarative
duality is, by nature, two-way. Having two methods or an option that
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Also, I want to know better which part of _putting it on ShadowRoot_
strikes Anne as bad. I would like striking him at all, especially with
something bad :P
Mainly, if it's bad for DocumentFragment, it's bad for
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Also, I want to know better which part of _putting it on ShadowRoot_
strikes Anne as bad. I would like striking him at all, especially with
I agree with your approach on staging the two specs for this, but the last
part about returning a constructor in one circumstance and undefined in the
other is something developers would rather not deal with (in my
observation). If I'm a downstream consumer or library author who's going to
wrap
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on
ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not
be a DocumentFragment?
No. all I'm saying that we made a conscious choice not to have
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we have API members on
ShadowRoot that aren't on DocumentFragment, then ShadowRoot should not
be a
On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
(mailto:ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
(mailto:dglaz...@google.com) wrote:
Still
* Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
We're planning on doing a BoF in Orlando to discuss starting up a JSON
working group. The BoF is currently planned for Monday afternoon at 1300
in Carribean 6. A very preliminary version of a charter can be found here:
It looks like Editing API draft is currently abandoned and there isn't any
activity on the topic in this list for a while (as far as I can find in the
archives)...
I am working on editing in IE, have issues of various scale that could benefit
from a discussion in standards environment. Short
Alex, work on Editing APIs was ongoing in the Community Group
(http://www.w3.org/community/editing/) though their draft is just under a year
old.
Aryeh may have more current info...
From: Alex Mogilevsky [mailto:alex...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:14 PM
To:
It is my understanding that Aryeh is currently not working on Editing API
(https://plus.google.com/100662365103380396132/posts/KyADU8K54uK) and there is
currently no successor or plan for further work... I would imagine there is
still non-zero interest in the subject, would be good to have a
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg08912.html)
Not sure this matters anymore as JavaScript has its own JSON
definition which we use.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Alex Mogilevsky alex...@microsoft.com wrote:
I am working on editing in IE, have issues of various scale that could
benefit from a discussion in standards environment. Short of creating a new
working group (which might be a good idea, but is pretty involved), is
21 matches
Mail list logo
