[Bug 18242] Not clear what "script that invoked the method" means exactly in the case of e.g. a.setTimeout(b.postMessage, 0) // called from c

2013-08-01 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18242 Cameron McCormack changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug 18242] Not clear what "script that invoked the method" means exactly in the case of e.g. a.setTimeout(b.postMessage, 0) // called from c

2013-08-01 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18242 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 22856] Defaults for the IDBKeyRange static functions arguments should be defined in IDL

2013-08-01 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22856 Joshua Bell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: HTML as application manifest format

2013-08-01 Thread Kornel Lesiński
On 1 August 2013 12:44:19 Scott Wilson wrote: Or you could perhaps use XML. A bit like, er, this: http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ Hehe ;) I'm trying to address two things: 1. it's been shown ever and over again that developers on the wild web are really bad at working with strict syntax. HTM

[Bug 22856] New: Defaults for the IDBKeyRange static functions arguments should be defined in IDL

2013-08-01 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22856 Bug ID: 22856 Summary: Defaults for the IDBKeyRange static functions arguments should be defined in IDL Classification: Unclassified Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified

Re: [XHR] Event firing order. XMLHttpRequestUpload then XMLHttpRequest or reverse

2013-08-01 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote: > Change on 2010/09/13 > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.138;r2=1.139;f=h > reversed the order of event firing for "request error" algorithm and send() > method to XHRUpload-then-XHR. > > sen

Re: HTML as application manifest format

2013-08-01 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> Hi Kornel, >> Although I have complete empathy about your criticisms regarding JSON, it is >> actually quite fit for this purpose. Using HTML in the way you describe is >> kinda pro

Re: HTML as application manifest format

2013-08-01 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Hi Kornel, > Although I have complete empathy about your criticisms regarding JSON, it is > actually quite fit for this purpose. Using HTML in the way you describe is > kinda problematic, in that it could include scripts and other resources

Re: HTML as application manifest format

2013-08-01 Thread Marcos Caceres
Hi Kornel, Although I have complete empathy about your criticisms regarding JSON, it is actually quite fit for this purpose. Using HTML in the way you describe is kinda problematic, in that it could include scripts and other resources: basically, one would need to build a DOM to parse out the

Re: HTML as application manifest format

2013-08-01 Thread Scott Wilson
Or you could perhaps use XML. A bit like, er, this: http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ On 18 Jul 2013, at 14:57, Kornel Lesiński wrote: > > I'd like to propose using HTML as basis of manifest format, similar in spirit > to Web Components imports, e.g. > > > > and then my-app-definition.html coul

Re: [webcomponents]: When is having a bad time

2013-08-01 Thread Brian Di Palma
The linking stage would be a stage where all that happens is the registration of custom elements. No custom element code would execute, there is no need to dereference the parent prototype. All that happens is the loading of resources. ES6 modules are meant to handle dependencies, it's in their de