Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

05.10.2014, 16:07, "Arthur Barstow" : > On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>  Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't >>  seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back >>  to WD/LCWD. >> >>  Does any implementation actually feel that it wou

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't >> seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back >> to WD/LCWD. >> >> Does any implementation actually

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back to WD/LCWD. Does any implementation actually feel that it would be? So, it appears you two recommend #2 below (publ

[admin] deadlines for publishing specs before TPAC

Because of the upcoming TPAC publication `black out` period, we have two deadlines regarding publishing a spec before TPAC: 1. October 13 is the last day to start a 1-week CfC to publish a LC or CR 2. October 18 is the last day to make a PSA to publish a new WD If you intend to publish a docum

Re: DOM Parsing and Serialization: open WHATWG bugs

On 10/5/14 8:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: I just checked in a patch to the ED that adds a Participate block: (If you'd like something else, just let me know.) Thanks, ideall

Re: DOM Parsing and Serialization: open WHATWG bugs

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > I just checked in a patch to the ED that adds a Participate block: > > > > (If you'd like something else, just let me know.) Thanks, ideally have distinct links for viewing open bu

Re: DOM Parsing and Serialization: open WHATWG bugs

On 10/5/14 3:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Apparently we had two Bugzilla components for this specification. I reassigned all from the WHATWG product to the WebAppsWG product (and we removed the WHATWG component to prevent further confusion): https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?comp

Re: Relative URLs in Web Components

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Scott Miles wrote: >> The URL is parsed again? That seems like something that should not >> happen. Are you copying the node perhaps? > > There is no explicit copying, but I don't know if there is something > implicit happening when the element goes trans-document.

Re: Relative URLs in Web Components

> The URL is parsed again? That seems like something that should not > happen. Are you copying the node perhaps? There is no explicit copying, but I don't know if there is something implicit happening when the element goes trans-document. Sample code (assume index.html that imports import/import.

Re: Relative URLs in Web Components

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Scott Miles wrote: > An issue is that a relative URL is only correct as long as the `img` (for > example) is owned by the import. If you migrate the element to the main > document, the path is now relative to the wrong base, and users are > confused. One can do `img

DOM Parsing and Serialization: open WHATWG bugs

Apparently we had two Bugzilla components for this specification. I reassigned all from the WHATWG product to the WebAppsWG product (and we removed the WHATWG component to prevent further confusion): https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=DOM%20Parsing%20and%20Serialization&produc