Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Indexed Database; deadline November 9

[Joshua Bell]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Arthur Barstow 
wrote:

>
> We now have a DRAFT Proposed Recommendation:
>
>   [Draft-PR]  Overview-PR-Nov-2014.html>
>
> It is based on the latest ED and includes Jonas' fix for Bug [25251]. It
> does not include the three "Block Issues" that are in the CR (my
> understanding is Joshua intends to remove those issue blocks from the ED).
>

Yes, just slipped my mind yesterday. The ED has been updated to remove
those "block issues" as well.

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Tantek Çelik]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:
> On 11/7/14 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Arthur Barstow 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you want`Mozilla Foundation` like Tantek? (If not, please let me know
>>> what you do want.)
>>
>> I would prefer just Mozilla. It's not a legal matter, after all.

I too would prefer just Mozilla.

> Please give me @X and @Y in: @Y. (Doing so offlist is fine
> ;-)).

@X = https://www.mozilla.org/
@Y = Mozilla


 or bug tracker.
>>>
>>> Are you still using Bugzilla? If so, it seems like a link to it should be
>>> included.
>>
>> Why would I want feedback on this Note?

Feedback: irc://irc.freenode.net/whatwg

would work for me


> -Thanks, AB

Thanks, -t
(aside: Art, I almost misread ", AB" as ", Advisory Board". I know
that was not your intent, just a heads-up.)

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of UI Events; deadline November 14

[Кошмарчик]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow 
> wrote:
> > If anyone has comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply by
> November
> > 14 at the latest.
>
> My concern is that we previously agreed that UI Events would be a much
> more suitable name for the contents of DOM Level 3 Events.


I agree. "UI Events" is a much more descriptive name for the content.

My primary concern is that we (specifically, "I") have been telling people
that UI Events is not the same as D3E. If we change this, then I'll have to
have those conversations all over again, but reversed. ^_^

But we
> would keep using DOM Level 3 Events because it would be done quickly
> and then we'd move on to UI Events. As we now know we did not finish
> DOM Level 3 Events quickly.


FWIW, we pushed to have it done quickly and it was delayed:
(1) once because the spec was a step backward from DOM2 in some regards and
that needed to be fixed,
(2) again because there was feedback that style and presentation should be
updated to match more recent specs.

#2 is when the WG effectively decided that cleaning up the presentation was
more important than releasing it quickly.

So I would like us to abandon that name
> and settle on UI Events.
>

SGTM.

With regards to the current contents of UI Events, I assume that publishing
a "gutted WD Note" is meant simply to establish a historical record of what
was worked on before the content is deleted?  When we were focusing on
completing the D3E spec quickly, this is where we sent items that we felt
should be part of D3E, but would take too much time to finalize. We'll want
to reconsider some of these items for inclusion back in D3E (er... I mean
UI Events).

-Gary

Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/8/14 2:07 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:

08.11.2014, 14:43, "Domenic Denicola" :

From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]

  OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points 
to Anne's document
  .

I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. "See Instead" or "Maintained 
Version" or "Replaced By". Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is 
unnecessarily combative.

Agree that it's the wrong framing, and the point is that the current W3C work 
is recognised as being supereseded...


I just updated the Draft WG Note to use "See Instead" 
.


-Thanks, AB

[Bug 27325] New: [Shadow]: Figure out how session history should work for s in shadow DOM

[bugzilla]

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27325

Bug ID: 27325
   Summary: [Shadow]: Figure out how session history should work
for s in shadow DOM
   Product: WebAppsWG
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: Component Model
  Assignee: dglaz...@chromium.org
  Reporter: b...@pettay.fi
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzi...@w3.org
CC: m...@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
Depends on: 26365

Currently s shouldn't be loaded at all in shadow DOM, but that
will probably change in bug 26365.

If some pages are then loaded to a shadow iframe, should the pages end up to
session history?
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#traverse-the-history-by-a-delta
is the tricky part, and 
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#joint-session-history in
particular.

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

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Indexed Database; deadline November 9

[Arthur Barstow]

On 11/2/14 2:27 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
During WebApps' October 27 meeting [Mins], the group reviewed the 
Indexed Database  testing data [Data] and agreed the specification 
should be published as a Proposed Recommendation (see [CR]). As such, 
this is Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of 
Indexed Database.


If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to 
this e-mail by November 9 at the latest. Positive response is 
preferred and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement 
with the proposal.


We now have a DRAFT Proposed Recommendation:

  [Draft-PR] 



It is based on the latest ED and includes Jonas' fix for Bug [25251]. It 
does not include the three "Block Issues" that are in the CR (my 
understanding is Joshua intends to remove those issue blocks from the ED).


[Diff] is a diff between [CR] and [Draft-PR].

-Thanks, AB

[25251] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25251
[Diff] 
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2013%2FCR-IndexedDB-20130704%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2FIndexedDB%2Fraw-file%2Fdefault%2FOverview-PR-Nov-2014.html



[Mins] http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webapps-minutes.html#item12
[Data] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2014OctDec/0008.html

[CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-IndexedDB-20130704/

Fwd: Reminder, survey closes 16-Nove - Re: Your feedback on TPAC2014 is welcome

[chaals]

W3C likes to get feedback on their meeting… it helps planning for the next one.

 Beginning of forwarded message  
14.11.2014, 12:52, "Coralie Mercier" :

Thank you to all who took the TPAC 2014 feedback survey already.
It is open for two more days.

   https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/tpac2014-feedback/

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com