This is a re-post from the WHATWG mailing list.
They've suggested I take the discussion to this list, as
pointer events have not yet been formalized.
I'd like to know if there's room or any work has been done to set aside a
standard for an extended set of pointer-device events.
With
On the main (or more useful) point perhaps, I think the distinction
between a device's internal features, its peripherals as attached
features, and more abstracted (even remote) resources is still very
blurry
between Webapps and DAP.
...
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
Perhaps the System Information
Here are a few use cases.
Touch-based event.
Case 1:
A user has a multi-touch pad, and, by using two fingers they may signal
the same
event that would have otherwise required the pressing of a button. This
may reduce
strain, especially smaller devices such as laptops and mobile phones,
(ATTCINW)
Cc: Charles Pritchard; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Event handlers - Pointer Devices
Hi, Bryan-
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote (on 3/4/10 9:15 AM):
This might be better discussed by the DAP group, as it's clearly a
device API topic.
By that definition, a mouse would
I just noticed that the cursor continue method in IndexedDB runs afoul
of the Safari js parser, with continue being a reserved word.
Was there any discussion on this issue? Should there be? Should I not
worry about it, and use cursor['continue'] instead of cursor.continue() ?
-Charles
the conclusion we
had with delete. My guess is that the JavaScriptCore (WebKit's main
JavaScript engine) parser needs to be changed. If so, you should
probably file a bug at webkit.org http://webkit.org/.
J
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com
On 12/6/2010 1:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Since Hixie is active on HTML, perhaps someone else is willing to pick
one of these LCs and to review the issues, bugs, diffs, etc. and propose
the next step . Any volunteers?
I am responding to feedback on
On 12/17/2010 5:03 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
We're actively developing such functionality.
The limit per directory is for the sake of the os file system. If
you want to create
On 12/21/2010 11:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/20/10 7:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Has a hash functions API been considered, so browsers can expose, for
example, a native SHA-1 implementation? Doing this in JS is
On 1/6/11 2:57 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
There is always Software Transactional Memory that provides a safe
model for memory shared between threads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory
On 6 January 2011 22:44, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6,
On 1/6/2011 3:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
Shouldn't sessionStorage be made accessible?
I don't think localStorage should be (to web workers), but sessionStorage
seems
a reasonable request.
Why wouldn't that have the same
Ian has, for quite some tine, described his whatwg document as HTML Next, a
'living' standard.
This is separate from the w3c procedures, where HTML5 will be codified.
As for web apps: I think it's too early to include them. I'd like to see more
standardization on elevating permissions.
On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Felix Halim felix.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/7 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 1/6/11 5:25 PM, João Eiras
On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, João Eiras joao-c-ei...@telecom.pt wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 20:39:50 you wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Charles Pritchard
ch...@visc.usmailto:ch...@visc.us wrote:
FWIW: websql is mostly abandoned, though super handy on ios mobile devices
On 1/31/2011 1:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I somehow missed that a request to add back ArrayBuffer support was
offlist. Since quite a few specifications are using it now and TC 39
has shown no progress on developing an alternative I was convinced to
add it back in. The responseType value
On 1/31/2011 9:20 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, Peter--comments inline below.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Peta Byte256petab...@googlemail.com wrote:
## toURI-method of Entry Interface
I'd recommend to spec out a common URI scheme for resources within a local
I rather like the prompt in the new FF builds; it's similar to the
prompt on Mobile Safari;
when you get into the site, it asks you if you're ok storing data, and
it allows you to specify a quota stepping.
FF does a great job on applicationCache + quota in that area.
The FileSystem API is a
On 2/3/2011 9:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I'm not sure FileSystem is necessarily any trickier from a user's
perspective -- it's all storage that is taking up space on my HD (at
least, for now the filesystem is just a directory under the user's
profile in Chrome). I think it fits fine in
On 2/3/2011 10:36 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us
mailto:ch...@visc.us wrote:
On 2/3/2011 9:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I'm not sure FileSystem is necessarily any trickier from a
user's perspective
On 2/4/2011 1:30 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@visc.us wrote:
The FileSystem API is a tricky thing.
indexedDB is more straightforward.
I'd be fine with exempting localStorage from API and just lock it at
5MB. It's tricky anyway since it's a
On 2/4/2011 2:29 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
2011/2/4 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com
mailto:ife...@google.com
For instance, if a user has been using a site for months, uses it
frequently, and the site hits its 5GB limit but there's still 300GB
free on the drive, perhaps we just give the
On 2/8/2011 8:03 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
- It's a major break from the normal event model. Merely
defining an event shouldn't cause side-effects.
This proposal seems to say
On 2/28/2011 3:50 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Charles Pritchard wrote:
I'd like some clarification on the intent of the FileSystem API:
requestFileSystem permanent, getDirectory and getFile.
Are they intended to directly pass through to the host operating system
Following up on this older thread, Mozilla has added ArrayBuffer to
their XHR object, though the documentation
is a little bare.
xhr.mozResponseArrayBuffer
On 2/4/2011 2:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:56:13 +0100, Charles Pritchard
ch...@jumis.com wrote
On 3/7/2011 5:04 PM, Chris Marrin wrote:
On Mar 7, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Chris Marrincmar...@apple.com wrote:
Now that ArrayBuffer has made its way into XHR, I think it would be reasonable
to somehow use this new object type as a way to pass
On 3/8/2011 6:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com mailto:pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
[mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
InkML is a development relevant to mobile Web.
Tablets and other input-rich devices are gaining in acceptance (and
becoming easier to purchase).
InkML is one of the few specs to put forward both a stream-based and
archive-oriented format.
We'll be using it to serialize input between
On 3/16/2011 4:34 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Eric Uhrhaneer...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
A couple of points I noticed while briefly perusing the File API specs:
* Blob.size has no conformance criteria (no
I second these comments: we have a web app over one meg in js scripts alone,
and it is designed for full offline usage.
AppCache has been very quirky and often difficult to debug. It adds a few steps
in the distro process and can get-in-the-way of debugging changes on a rapidly
developing app.
On 4/3/2011 11:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
(again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component
On 4/4/2011 10:15 AM, Ryan Fugger wrote:
That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/
Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite,
and then encourage
In fairness, and perspective, GLSL is a big leap, adding one more language with
neat features like swizzle and matrix math.
SQL is too big a leap for the time being. I'd like to see a continued effort at
'borrowing' from our new web family member, glsl. Typed arrays are wonderful.
There's been
On 4/11/2011 2:32 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote:
createWriter method to the objects in the HTMLInputElement.files array
(a new subclass of File), to create a writer for the underlying file.
That would violate the user expectation that files provided using a
We're using ArrayBuffer... It's been through a few changes of its own relating
to slice.
I think they just went the route of renaming the method.
-Charles
On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
Indeed, it appeared in FF 4 which was shipped end of March, so if
I strongly prefer a rename as done with subarray in the typed arrays spec. It's
straightforward on feature detection, as it's just an if [exists] statement.
On Apr 12, 2011, at 7:03 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I just realized that string.slice also follows the pattern of
On 5/8/2011 12:50 PM, timeless wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Glenn Maynardgl...@zewt.org wrote:
If *this API's* concept of filenames is case-insensitive, then IMAGE.JPG
and image.jpg represent the same file on English systems and two different
files on Turkish systems, which is an
On 5/8/2011 1:14 PM, timeless wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
The one take-away I have from that bug: it would have been nice to have a
more descriptive error message.
It took awhile to figure out that the path length was too long for the
There have been a few requests for an XHR which does not expose session data to
the target. I believe IE9 has an interface for this; I know it's been requested
on chromium bug list.
On Jun 15, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/15/11 6:43 AM, David Bruant wrote:
One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui
elements.
I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early
experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe.
Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I
timeless,
I agree, it'd be nice to know. I'd really like to see this put toward
the AG (Accessibility Guidelines)
people, as they're the ones who follow this kind of things.
It's absolutely the case that a user needs an ability to escape from the
mouse lock context,
and to have one which
getFile could work with dataTransfer for dropping files onto the desktop. There
may be other Apis which work with File but not with Blob, or not as well with
Blob.
Blob already requires linking/abstraction from createObjectUrl. Internally,
getFile could simply run createObjectUrl and treat it
,
modifying FormData append is a trivial change.
What are the other APIs where this is a problem?
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Charles Pritchard
Sent: 11-Jul-11 12:03 PM
To: Adrian Bateman
Cc: Jonas Sicking; Anne van Kesteren; Julian Reschke; Alfonso Martínez de
Lizarrondo; Webapps WG
On 7/18/2011 12:09 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, July 11, 2011 12:46 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Problem is too strong a statement. I am all for trivial changes, part of my
advocacy for getFile is from past experiences when blob was less supported;
getFile would have helped.
FileReader
On 7/18/2011 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
If there is an API that replies on File to
work correctly we think we should fix it to work with Blob. For example,
FileReader is
really BlobReader and works fine with Blobs. To me, getFile() should be
unnecessary and
the best fix for FormData
On Aug 1, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Creates an element with the specified tag, attributes, and children.
tagName - tag name as a string; by default it does smart selection
of SVG, HTML or MathML namespace.
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, João Eiras wrote:
While the idea is interesting, create is a too simple name to add on
something as polluted as Element.
Why?
I think create() is fine. It's a pretty common name for a factory or
On 8/2/2011 9:48 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
In an IRC discussion with Ian Hickson and Tab Atkins, we can up with the
following idea for convenient element creation:
Element.create(tagName, attributeMap, children…)
Creates
On 8/3/2011 8:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:46:50 +0200, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
What's the difference?
ele.setAttribute(x, val) works on any element. ele[x] = val does not.
They also behave differently for a large number of cases and the
latter often
On 8/5/2011 9:23 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as to which
spec they cite regardless of the reason.
And one of the role of the W3C staff is to ensure proper coordination
between the various Working Groups at the W3C. I'm
On 8/6/2011 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
Element.create looks neat. Three thoughts:
...
Let me briefly reiterate that I think we want *both* Element.create
and constructors; they have complementary uses.
I agree.
Second, re: setAttribute vs setting properties, there might be types
other
On 8/6/2011 3:54 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 8/6/11, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/6/2011 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
Element.create looks neat. Three thoughts:
...
Let me briefly reiterate that I think we want *both* Element.create
and constructors; they have
On 8/5/2011 7:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version? What
does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group? There are features
in the WHATWG version that got rejected in the HTML Working Group.
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming data.
...
Agreed. I proposed something similar in January, with fixed buffer lengths:
On 8/8/2011 2:51 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Simon Heckmann si...@simonheckmann.de
mailto:si...@simonheckmann.de wrote:
Well, not directly an answer to your question, but the use case I
had in mind is the following:
A large encrypted video (e.g. HD
On 8/8/2011 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming
On 8/9/2011 1:00 AM, Cyril Concolato wrote:
Hi Charles,
I believe that GPAC seeks through large SVG files via offsets and
small buffers, from what I understood at SVG F2F.
http://gpac.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
The technique is similar to what PDF has in it's spec.
I don't know what you're
On 8/10/2011 5:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The point of streamed XHR is to receive data as soon as it's available
so that you can process it right away. This also means that you're
likely going to get the data in pretty small chunks. Hence the use
cases for streaming are basically the direct
On 8/12/11 12:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 02:13:20 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming data.
Before we add yet another set of features,
On 8/23/2011 3:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:18:19 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Yes. Where if the filename is excluded is left out it uses the
File.name of the Blob (if the Blob is also a File), or blob (if the
Blob is not a File).
That leaves the
On 8/24/2011 1:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:44:15 +0200, Charles Pritchard
ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Is there any interest in supporting application/x-www-form-urlencoded ?
It would of course lose any carried content types or file names from
Blobs. urlencoding
On 8/24/11 11:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
Prpoposed:
FormData output with the x-www-form-urlencoded mime type:
formData.toUrlEncodedBlob(xhr.send)
If going down the blob path, these two would have the same
On 8/24/2011 11:56 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 8/24/11 11:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
Prpoposed:
FormData output with the x-www-form-urlencoded mime type:
formData.toUrlEncodedBlob(xhr.send)
[Supplemental
On 8/30/11 5:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/24/2011 11:56 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 8/24/11 11:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
On 8/30/2011 11:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:49:19 +0200, Charles Pritchard
ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Many services use form-urlencoded for form data, though not for
files, and typically not for large strings.
Google's Picasa uses multipart/related instead of multipart
On 8/30/2011 7:11 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/30/11 5:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
On 8/24/2011 11:56 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 8/24
On 8/31/2011 10:19 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Simple case:
var callback = function(blob) { xhr.send(blob); };
formData.toBlob(callback, 'multipart/form-data');
Several services require signed messages
On 8/31/2011 10:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Glenn Maynardgl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jonas Sickingjo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Simple case:
var callback = function(blob) { xhr.send(blob); };
formData.toBlob(callback,
On 9/2/11 12:10 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
Since Dimitri has already said everything I would, and better, I just
want to very quickly second his point about where we are today vs.
where we fear we might be: non-trivial apps have *already* given up on
HTML. Suggesting that there's an un-semantic
On 9/2/11 3:00 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/2/11 12:10 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
Since Dimitri has already said everything I would, and better, I just
want to very quickly second his point about where we are today
On 9/2/2011 6:39 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
Similarly, WCAG is a series of principles for designing usable, high quality
applications.
ARIA presents a set of semantic roles that don't exist in HTML, and
for those, alignment with custom element implementations is
outstanding. Components that
On 9/4/11 8:47 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Anne-
On 9/4/11 9:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest
priority of our DOM-related specs and they have put
On 9/4/11 10:06 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
On 9/4/11 12:49 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Is there a wiki page or other resource for looking into implementation
status on DOM3Events?
It's a large spec, and I'd like to plan for it in our internal roadmap.
We will be building a complete test suite
Apologies, I've only recently caught up with tr/domcore.
http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#exceptions
When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed, either
this specification can be updated accordingly, or an extension
specification can be written that overrides the requirements
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I
will proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM Core in TR/.
The name DOM Core will be used for
On 9/5/11 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard
ch...@jumis.com wrote:
I propose calling it Web Core.
WC1 (Web Core version 1).
It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep DOM in
the name given that everything it builds
On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They
love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable
then the Editor's
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The CfC to publish
On 9/5/11 10:49 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Le 6 sept. 2011 à 00:51, Glenn Maynard a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net
mailto:p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page
(e.g. flash advertisement
On 9/6/11 9:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I
will proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM Core
On 9/5/11 2:38 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barthw...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne
There are various specifications that include terminology warnings as
part of their reference to DOMCore.
Can we reduce the cost of including DOMCore references in basic APIs, by
adding some kind of supporting text to the DOMCORE specification's
extensibility section?
Example:
On 9/5/11 12:11 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love
cling the dated specs and then pretend they
On 9/6/11 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They
pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off incorporating
git. It's quite easy.
On Sep 9, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Sean Hogan shogu...@westnet.com.au wrote:
On 10/09/11 3:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It's a completely useless function. It just implements the equality
operator. I believe most languages have a equality operator already.
Except Brainfuck [1]. But the DOM isn't
On 9/9/2011 6:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Sep 9, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Sean Hoganshogu...@westnet.com.au wrote:
On 10/09/11 3:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It's a completely useless function. It just implements the
On 9/13/2011 11:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:32:03 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On September 13, the Web Events WG published a LCWD of the Touch
Events version 1 spec:
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly
On 9/14/11 4:30 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the
HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on
Aryeh's email.
Aryeh told me there are some related bugs:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the HTML5
spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on Aryeh's email.
Aryeh told me there are
On 9/16/11 8:00 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le vendredi 16 septembre 2011 à 21:36 +0700, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I think they are actually not so different, and share many use cases.
Ok, I strongly object in the strongest of terms to them being put together and
I'm more than happy
On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text editing as
a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG editing
specification is now the -only- supported solution for developers to author
editing environments.
, Company X is evil!!!, because nobody listens to that
guy. ^_^
Thanks-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Developer Outreach
Project Coordinator, SVG, WebApps, Touch Events, and Audio WGs
On 9/16/11 1:44 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 9/15/2011 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Apple, Google and Microsoft
Should Paul Kinlan be Cc'd on this? His concept work is helpful.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
In particular, why are intents registered via a new HTML
On 9/20/2011 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the WG
you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases
On 9/20/2011 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue
here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps
take over Intents
On 9/20/2011 10:27 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get any
attention from a party
I've snipped the transcript to parts relevant to my top-posted discussion.
We already have web components; there are two shimmering examples on the
net right now.
1.
First, there's Canvas. Canvas has a subtree, and at some point earlier
on, it was referred to as the Canvas shadow dom.
In
On 9/22/2011 9:43 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Is there consensus within the CG to not move the spec to the REC track?
The spec is in the public domain and anyone can theoretically submit
it to the REC track, so consensus
On 9/22/2011 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
Q: Why are the verbs URLs?
Verbs don't have to be URL's but a URL will allow us a point of
reference to documentation, versioning and namespacing allowing
verbs with
I've some strong reservations about expanding the scheme into dns-land.
On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Mark Baker dist...@acm.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com
We're commenting on Aryeh's spec, he's the author, the copyright holder,
and our comments to do not entitle us to any form of attribution.
Expanded:
For the sake of Aryeh's copyright on the working document, I'd like to
remind everyone again, that their comments on the document will be
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
