On 3/25/13 4:36 PM, David Bruant wrote:
We could complicate the scoping setup for event handlers even more, of
course. Would any UAs actually be willing to implement that (given
that e.g. Chrome doesn't even implement the current, simpler, scoping
setup sanely)?
Any info on why they don't imple
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21392
David Leston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dave Methvin
> wrote:
> >> Basically, either UAs that currently implement window.event remove it or
> >> it's clearly required for web compat and hence needs to be specified so
> >> other UAs can impleme
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21392
Bug ID: 21392
Summary: FileReader does not specify behavior on invalid input
Classification: Unclassified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
On 3/25/13 2:47 PM, David Bruant wrote:
For the latter case, a scoping trick might work. In essence, on* code
could run within a scope "located" between the code scope and the global
scope.
It already does: the scope is the element, with some more complications
as to what's on the scope chain
Le 25/03/2013 20:00, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
On 3/25/13 2:47 PM, David Bruant wrote:
For the latter case, a scoping trick might work. In essence, on* code
could run within a scope "located" between the code scope and the
global scope.
It already does: the scope is the element, with some more
> Basically, either UAs that currently implement window.event remove it or
> it's clearly required for web compat and hence needs to be specified so
> other UAs can implement it. I don't see any other sane options; do you?
>
> I'm okay with the first one. Is that a real option? I've never seen
any
Hello folks!
It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the "Web
Components" as the name for the spec (cc'd some
of the "feedbackers").
So... these malcontents are suggesting that "Web Components" is more a
of a general name for all the cool things we're inventing, and should be call
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dave Methvin wrote:
>> Basically, either UAs that currently implement window.event remove it or
>> it's clearly required for web compat and hence needs to be specified so
>> other UAs can implement it. I don't see any other sane options; do you?
>
> I'm okay with
On 3/25/13 3:19 PM, Dave Methvin wrote:
Basically, either UAs that currently implement window.event remove
it or it's clearly required for web compat and hence needs to be
specified so other UAs can implement it. I don't see any other sane
options; do you?
I'm okay with the fir
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Arun Ranganathan
wrote:
> So just to be clear, do you think we should remove "500-style" responses
> altogether, and *completely defer* to network error, which essentially
> involves throwing on expired / revoked / invalid Blob URLs? I'm ok with that
> if so.
- Anne vK said: -
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan
> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > We're not actually leaving what exactly to return open to
> > implementors. They *must* return a 500. They *may* additionally
> > provide a messa
What content depends on them, and why cater to such code?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> WebKit and IE both support these kinda disastrous APIs. Turns out more
> and more content starts to rely on them as with every bug you keep
> around for too long. Unless someone
WebKit and IE both support these kinda disastrous APIs. Turns out more
and more content starts to rely on them as with every bug you keep
around for too long. Unless someone sees a plan to keep them out of
the platform, I'll add them per
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20713 and then
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21388
Bug ID: 21388
Summary: handling of analog vs. digital buttons
Classification: Unclassified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Statu
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> We're not actually leaving what exactly to return open to implementors. They
> *must* return a 500. They *may* additionally provide a message, which is
> akin to console messages
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21387
Bug ID: 21387
Summary: Need to spec better support for control mapping
Classification: Unclassified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21386
Bug ID: 21386
Summary: Should specify how to present d-pads/triggers as
buttons
Classification: Unclassified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
18 matches
Mail list logo
