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] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/default/Overview-PR-Nov-2014.html It is based on the latest ED and includes Jonas' fix for Bug . 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  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%2Fdoc2=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/
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27325 Bug ID: 27325 Summary: [Shadow]: Figure out how session history should work for iframes 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, firstname.lastname@example.org Depends on: 26365 Currently iframes 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.
On 11/8/14 2:07 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: 08.11.2014, 14:43, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: 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 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. 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 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. -Thanks, AB
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com 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