> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl]
> Sent: 06 May 2015 15:25
> Open issues are kept track of here:
>
> https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Custom_Elements
>
> I think we reached rough consensus at the Extensible Web Summit that is=""
> does not do much, even for accessibility. Accessi
to revisit the appearance:; property [1], although
here opinions differ. It's a conversation for CSS, but fragmenting this
discussion right now seems like it might derail some useful thinking.
Léonie.
[1] https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css4-ui?s[]=appearance
--
Léonie Watson Senior accessibility engineer, TPG
@LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup PacielloGroup.com
Is there a succinct explanation of why the is= syntax is disliked? The info on
the WHATWG wiki explains where is= breaks, but doesn’t offer much on the syntax
issue [1].
Léonie.
[1] https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Custom_Elements#Subclassing_existing_elements
--
Léonie Watson - Senior
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@codespeaks.com]
Sent: 12 June 2015 21:26
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, at 19:41, Léonie Watson wrote:
> Is there a succinct explanation of why the is= syntax is disliked? The
> info on the WHATWG wiki explains where is= breaks, but doesn’t offer
> much on t
e attributes
relate to rather than the element indicated in the extendedby=
attribute.
Léonie.
--
Léonie Watson - Senior accessibility engineer
@LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup PacielloGroup.com
From: Bruce Lawson [mailto:bru...@opera.com]
Sent: 13 June 2015 16:34
On 13 June 2015 at 15:30, Léonie Watson wrote:
> why not use the extends= syntax you mentioned?
>
> Push
because browsers that don't know about web components wouldn't pay any
attention to , and render &
hen it changes?
That aside, concentrating efforts on styling native HTML elements makes a lot
of sense.
Léonie
--
Léonie Watson - Senior accessibility engineer
@LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup PacielloGroup.com
> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 24 October 2015 04:42
> Well, since SVG 'use' is mostly about replicating the composed tree
anyway,
> it seems that is should probably render the composed tree--e.g., this
seems
> natural, because use would "replicate" the host
Thanks to everyone for a useful and informative discussion. Minutes
available from the following palces:
Web:
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html
Text:
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-html-minutes.html,text
Léonie
--
Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson
> From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: 28 October 2015 13:20
> it would be good to have a face to face meeting, and wrap up loose ends.
> At the TPAC meeting times suggested were December and late January.
[...]
> I would propose a day between 10 and 14 December as
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 October 2015 20:35
>
> Thanks!
>
> Would someone with write privs to these minutes please commit to at least
> identifying the folks attributed in the minutes (f.ex. who is "DS")? It
would
> also be useful if the "Present" list incl
Quick reminder to please complete the ballot on proposed F2F meeting times. The
feeling seems to be to meet sooner rather than later, so getting a decision
ASAP would probably be a good thing to do (especially for those of us with
travel plans to make):
https://modernballots.com/elections/agkedj
Hello WP,
This is notice of intent to publish a new Working Draft of HTML
Accessibility API Mappings on/around 19th November [1]. It is a joint
publication of the Web Platform and ARIA WGs.
Léonie.
[1] http://w3c.github.io/aria/html-aam/html-aam.html
--
Senior accessibility engineer @LeonieWat
> From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: 26 November 2015 01:55
> it appears that there are some people may not be able to attend a meeting
> on the 29th - although Apple has generously offered to host that day.
>
> Is there anyone who would only be able to attend if w
The WP WG approves publication of the HTML AAM WD.
Léonie, Ade, Chaals and Art (WP co-chairs)
> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:lwat...@paciellogroup.com]
> Sent: 19 November 2015 09:20
> To: public-webapps@w3.org
> Cc: 'Michael Cooper'
>
Hello WP,
Finding the balance between rapidity and process can be challenging. WP
continues the work mode established by WebApps, where flexible and agile
collaboration is encouraged, and the W3C process respected.
Whenever people meet (formally or informally) to discuss a spec, there is a
good c
-Original Message-
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
Sent: 19 January 2016 19:21
To: public-h...@w3.org
Subject: HTML plan
Dear all,
We've put a new draft of the HTML specification into GitHub:
http://github.com/w3c/html.
You can read the editor's draft:
http://w3c
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:p...@w3.org]
Sent: 18 February 2016 22:03
To: Chairs ; spec-prod
Subject: New W3C publication requirements as of March 1
All,
We adopted back in May 2015 [1] a project to update our style sheets used in
W3C documents.
I'm pleased
Glazkov [mailto:dglaz...@google.com]
Sent: 15 March 2016 04:30
To: Ryosuke Niwa
Cc: Léonie Watson ; Chaals McCathie Nevile
; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Telecon / meeting on first week of April for Web Components
I am game, per usual.
:DG<
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ryosuke N
For a telecon, we can create a WebEx instance if that would be useful? Let
me know the date/time (UTC), and we'll get it sorted.
For an F2F, we'll need to post notice of the date/venue at least eight weeks
in advance [1]. Let me know the date(s)/venue, and we can do that too.
Léonie.
[1] https://
Please remember WP’s email etiquette policy [1].
Group members appreciate and encourage frank technical discussions on its mail
lists but all discussions must be done in a respectful manner. Please note this
respect requirement is codified in the Process Document via the following
participa
Hello,
There will be an HTML editors meeting on 10 - 11 May 2016, at Microsoft in
Redmond. Info here:
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/meetings/10-11mayHTML.md
If you are interested in joining the HTML editorial team, we would like to
hear from you. Whilst anybody can submit a
Hello,
We need to request meeting space at TPAC by the end of this month. As Chaals
previously noted, we will be focusing meeting time on particular areas
rather than holding multiple plenary days [1].
If you would like time/space to meet to work on a particular spec, please
let us know how much
Hello WP,
We're looking for a new editor for the Custom Elements spec [1].
Dimitri Glazkov has stepped down as editor and will be greatly missed in the
role. Thank you for all your hard work Dimitri, you helped make Custom
Elements happen and it's very much appreciated.
Domenic Denicola briefly
Hello,
The WP co-chairs and team are happy to announce that Domenic Denicola will
be the new editor of the Custom Elements and Shadow DOM specifications at
W3C.
With thanks to Google for their time and support, we're looking forward to
working with Domenic - and to the continued evolution of thes
Hello,
At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
following two specifications would benefit from further incubation before
continuing along the Recommendation track:
Quota Management API [1]
Input Method Editor API [2]
This is a CFC to publish each of these specificatio
> From: Domenic Denicola [mailto:d...@domenic.me]
> Sent: 26 April 2016 19:06
> Thanks Léonie. One correction:
>
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
>
>
> > The WP co-chairs and team are happy to announce that Domenic Denicola
> > will be the new editor
Hello WP,
At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further incubation
before continuing along the Recommendation track.
This is a CFC to publish Packaging on the Web as a W3C note. If the CFC
passes, the transiti
With the subject line repaired this time...
> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 24 May 2016 18:54
> To: public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: CFC
>
> Hello WP,
>
> At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that
Hello WP,
We have meeting space available throughout TPAC week [1]. The plan is to
focus on a different area of work each day, to help everyone schedule their
time a bit more easily.
We've posted meeting pages for each day:
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/Meetings.md
Monday 19
> From: Lin, Wanming [mailto:wanming@intel.com]
> Sent: 31 May 2016 08:46
> Hello WP,
Hello Wanming, and welcome.
[...]
> I am proud to represent my team to join in this group, I am a newbie but I
will
> try my best.
> Looking forward to working with you all.
Thank you. We are looking forwar
Hello WP,
This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML
Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted to
public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this WG.
Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@w3.org no later than end of
day
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML
> Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been
> posted to public-webapps@w3.org as the official email for this
> From: mar...@marcosc.com [mailto:mar...@marcosc.com]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 17:15
> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of
> this mailing list.
We mention in the CFC that positive responses are preferred and encouraged
(which they are), so this is an appeal to
> From: Sangwhan Moon [mailto:sangw...@iki.fi]
> Sent: 03 June 2016 02:45
> I believe Marcos is raising a valid concern here - while I'm not in full
> agreement that only objections matter, most of the people get enough mail
> already and it does make it easy to get important feedback lost in a cha
Hello WP,
This CFC passed with many expressions of support. Thank you to everyone who
responded and gave feedback.
Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and HTML editors
> -Original Message-
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
> Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
>
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer
Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit
Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that were
made after the current CR was published in 2013 [2].
Please rep
13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson mailto:t...@tink.uk> >
wrote:
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer
Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit
Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specificat
Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by end of
day on Thursday 23rd June 2016.
From: Vincent Scheib [mailto:sch...@google.com]
Sent: 21 June 2016 05:09
“I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with this
proposal:
Move to a CR for
From: Takayoshi Kochi [mailto:ko...@google.com]
“I'm fine without Shadow DOM changes, because no one yet implemented the
intended change to the spec yet,
and so it could be immature to include in a "CR". (Does CR require at least 2
implementors exist?)”
Yes, CR requires at least two
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk]
Sent: 21 June 2016 11:18
Yes, CR requires at least two implementations in shipping browsers. Once
Pointer Lock is at Recc, hopefully the Shadow DOM content will be stable enough
to include in Pointer Lock next.
Correction: A CR doesn’t require 2
On 21/06/2016 13:14, Léonie Watson wrote:
Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by
end of day on Thursday 23^rd June 2016.
With thanks to those who responded, this CFC passes. We will begin the
process of transitioning Pointer Lock to CR.
Léonie
Reminder that this CFC closes on Thursday 14th July (end of day). If you
can take a few minutes to respond through one of the three proposed
channels, it will help us identify the work mode that suits the WG best.
Thanks.
Léonie.
On 05/07/2016 15:15, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
This is a c
Hello WP,
Information for the meeting on 28/29 July is here:
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/meetings/16-07-28-29SW.md
If you plan to attend, it would be helpful if you could create a PR to
add yourself to the attendees list (or let me know and I'll add you).
Thanks.
Léo
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of IndexedDB 2.0 [1].
We are still exploring different ways of responding to a CFC. Please
choose one of the following methods:
1. Reply by email to this thread (on
public-webapps@w3.org).
2. Reply
Hello WP,
Instead of asking the whole WG to meet on all four meeting days at TPAC,
we had requests from editors and other active contributors to focus each
day on a different area of work [1].
Monday - Web Components
Tuesday - Service Workers
Thursday - Editing TF and Selection API
Friday - H
On 04/08/2016 15:00, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
I would like to request a 90 minute meeting on Friday at TPAC.
Thanks Rich.
We've taken a different approach to meeting at TPAC this year. Instead
of the whole WG meeting on each of the four meeting days, each day is
focused on a specific area o
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for
referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension specification
[1]. The CFC is posted to public-webapps@w3.org because this is the
official WP email list, and copied to public-h...@w3.org.
The proposal:
1. Remo
Quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day tomorrow
(Wednesday 10th August). Thanks.
Léonie.
--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
On 03/08/2016 15:46, Léonie Watson wrote:
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of IndexedDB 2.0
On 06/08/2016 02:12, Jonas Sicking wrote:
A little over a month ago I got married. My wife and I are planning on
doing an extended honeymoon, starting now and ending sometime early next
year.
Congratulations!
[...]
Working on the web with you all has been an amazing experience. Please
keep m
A quick reminder that this CFC closes at the end of day tomorrow (Friday
12th August).
Thanks.
Léonie.
--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
On 05/08/2016 18:17, Léonie Watson wrote:
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for
referencing the Image Description
With thanks to everyone who responded. This CFC received only positive
responses, and so passes without objection.
Léonie.
--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
On 03/08/2016 15:46, Léonie Watson wrote:
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft
On 11/08/2016 11:41, Jake Archibald wrote:
Notes were taken in IRC, here's a
log https://gist.github.com/jakearchibald/c65009efa2ed9dbe3ad38f5fef5a4ef1.
Here's
my run-down of the
headlines https://jakearchibald.com/2016/service-worker-meeting-notes/.
Thanks Jake. Both added to the WP meetings
Hello WP,
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed
Recommendation (PR) [1].
Some editorial changes were made to the specification during the
Candidate Recommendation (CR) period, but none that affects conformance.
The CR implementation
report is available [2].
W
+1
Great for this to be progressing.
Léonie.
--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:
Hello, Web Platform WG,
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of
Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means
you co
Quick reminder that this CFC closes tomorrow, Saturday 20th August. Thanks.
Léonie.
--
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:
Hello, Web Platform WG,
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of
Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis
On 14/08/2016 00:01, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Proposed Recommendation of
Pointer Lock using the [PR] as the basis. Agreement with this CfC means
you consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes
since CR are not substantive.
This CFC receiv
On 16/08/2016 07:46, Léonie Watson wrote:
This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed
Recommendation (PR) [1].
This CFC received positive messages of support and no objections, and so
it passes.
Thank you to Yves and Travis for their work on this specification
58 matches
Mail list logo