On 07/29/2016 06:13 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
Hi folks,
our charter expires at the end of September. I've produced a draft version of a
new charter, for people to comment on:
http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/group-charter.html
Feel free to raise comments as issues:
Random comments inline (other people from Mozilla may have different opinions)
On 01/24/2016 10:01 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
Here's WebKit team's feedback for custom elements.
== Constructor vs createdCallback ==
We would like to use constructor instead of created callback.
no
On 01/08/2016 07:06 PM, Juraj Maracky wrote:
Hello,
I propose to rename FileReader's load event to success. This way it is much
easier to remember and mentally group FileReader's events:
error - success; loadstart - loadend; progress - abort.
Also, this would clarify potential confusion with
On 01/10/2016 01:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
This is another feedback from multiple browser vendors (Apple, Google,
Microsoft) that got together in Redmond last Thursday to discuss editing API
and related events.
We've been informed that Gecko/Firefox does not fire keydown/keyup
Hard to judge this proposal before seeing an API using StaticRange objects.
One thing though, if apps were to create an undo stack of their own, they could easily have their own Range-like API implemented in JS. So if that is
the only use case, probably not worth to add anything to make the
On 01/10/2016 01:14 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
This is another feedback from multiple browser vendors (Apple, Google,
Microsoft) that got together in Redmond last Thursday to discuss editing API
and related events.
We found out that all major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, and Safari) fire
On 01/10/2016 05:05 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jan 9, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Olli Pettay <o...@pettay.fi> wrote:
On 01/10/2016 01:14 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
This is another feedback from multiple browser vendors (Apple, Google,
Microsoft) that got together in Redmond last Th
On 12/18/2015 06:20 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: Simon Pieters [mailto:sim...@opera.com]
Note that it requires liveness. Does that work for a frozen array?
Frozen array instances are frozen and cannot change. However, you can have the
property that returns them start returning a new
On 11/06/2015 09:28 PM, Justin Fagnani wrote:
You can also override addEventListener/removeEventListener on your element. My
concern with that, and possibly an event listener change callback, is
that it only works reliably for non-bubbling events.
How even with those? One could just add
On 10/28/2015 06:19 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
Hi,
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.
If people want to do it soon, we should probably aim for December, which means
finding a date
On 07/16/2015 08:30 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com]
I've discussed this issue with some of Edge's key parser developers.
Awesome; thank you for doing that!
I believe to be the most straightforward approach that most closely matches
On 07/16/2015 03:45 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
Hi all,
Ahead of next week's F2F, I'm trying to pull together some clarifying and
stage-setting materials, proposals, lists of open issues, etc. In the
end, they all get blocked on one key question:
**Is it OK to run author code during
On 07/13/2015 09:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
Well, this printing case would just clone the final flattened tree without
the original document knowing any cloning happened.
(scripts aren't suppose to run in Gecko's static
On 07/12/2015 08:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
I think the most important question here, though, is not constructors or
prototype swizzling.
I guess that depends on what you want to enable. If you want to
recreate
On 07/01/2015 02:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
I was recently pointed to this StackOverflow thread
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31094454/does-the-shadow-dom-replace-before-and-after/
which asks what happens to ::before and ::after on shadow hosts, as
it's not clear from the specs. I had to
On 06/11/2015 11:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
I would actually prefer some sort of pseudocode that is _not_ JS-looking, just
so people don't accidentally screw this up.
This one please - otherwise it would be way too easy to think the algorithm
would run in the context of the page.
But
On 06/09/2015 09:39 PM, Daniel Cheng wrote:
Currently, the Clipboard API [1] mandates support for a number of formats.
Unfortunately, we do not believe it is possible to safely support writing a
number of formats to the clipboard:
- image/png
- image/jpg, image/jpeg
- image/gif
If these types
On 05/15/2015 06:39 PM, Wilson Page wrote:
Wouldn't it likely need to be called just before layout?
Probably yes, but it is not defined when that actually happens.
All the issues Dimitri highlighted are symptoms of layout running before
distribution.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Olli
On 05/15/2015 05:37 PM, Wilson Page wrote:
Would it be possible to leave the calling of the shadowRoot's distribute()
function to the engine? This way the engine can be in full control over
*when* distribution happens.
We would need to define when the engine calls it, otherwise web pages
= new xbutton(icon.png); // XComponet have to do
hard-coding. Please allow me to pass |icon| to x-button!
...
}
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:23 PM Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 04/25/2015 01:58 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Apr 25, 2015, at 1:17 PM
On 04/25/2015 09:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
In today's F2F, I've got an action item to come up with a concrete workable
proposal for imperative API. I had a great chat about this afterwards with
various people who
On 04/25/2015 01:58 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Apr 25, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 04/25/2015 09:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
In today's F2F, I've got an action item to come up
On 04/22/2015 03:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Domenic
On 03/26/2015 04:51 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Earlier today I ran the Web Sockets tests on Chrome 41, Chrome/Canary 43, FF
Nightly 39, IE 11, and Opera 12 and pushed the results to the
test-results repo:
* All results http://w3c.github.io/test-results/websockets/all.html
* 2 passes
On 02/05/2015 02:24 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
However, I would like to first understand if that is the problem that the group
wants to solve. It is unclear from this conversation.
Yes. The marketing speech for shadow DOM has changed over time from do everything possible,
make things
On 02/05/2015 01:20 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
You don't need strong isolation primitives to do a lot of good.
Simple composition helpers lift an *enormous* weight off the shoulders
of web devs, and make whole classes of bugs obsolete. Shadow DOM is
precisely that composition helper right now.
On 02/03/2015 07:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Not trying to barge in, just sprinkling data...
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com
mailto:bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote
On 02/03/2015 04:22 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay o...@pettay.fi
mailto:o...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the
composition problem
On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the composition
problem:
https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/
This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I would like to
see
On 01/24/2015 09:52 AM, Koji Ishii wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Mats Palmgren m...@mozilla.com wrote:
If we really want authors to have convenience methods like
setStartBefore() on Selection, we could add them to Selection.
Selection methods wouldn't provide the same
On 01/23/2015 02:20 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 1/23/15 5:11 AM, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote:
Hi all,
I intend to implement the webview element in gecko and as part of my
research I put up a wiki page that summarize the browser-api or
webview API that has been implemented by vendors here:
On 01/10/2015 06:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Olivier Forget teleclim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri Jan 09 2015 at 4:43:49 AM Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
- It may never happen, but when multiple ranges are supported, are
they bound to index?
Everyone
On 01/07/2015 12:32 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
https://github.com/w3c/selection-api/issues/40
Trident (since IE10) and Gecko both return a live Range, which can be modified
to update selection. WebKit and Blink both return a clone Range so that any
changes to the Range doesn't update the
On 09/03/2014 12:10 PM, Greeves, Nick wrote:
I would like to emphasise the detrimental effect that the proposed
experimentation would have on a large number of sites across Chemistry research
and
education that would mysteriously stop working when users (automatically)
upgraded their browsers
On 07/24/2014 02:49 AM, Paul bellamy wrote:
Hi
In the specification for XMLHttpRequest you posted a “warning” about using
async=false which indicates that it is the intention to eventually remove
this feature due to “detrimental effects to the user experience” when in a
document environment.
On 04/09/2014 09:10 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 4/9/14 10:19 AM, ext Zhang, Zhiqiang wrote:
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
* IDB: Zhiqiang; test suite status; plan to create an Implementation Report
I've reviewed the open pull requests and moved all tests into
On 02/12/2014 04:27 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Feb 11, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Olli Pettay wrote:
We could add some scheduling thing to mutation observers. By default we'd use
microtask, since that tends to be good for various performance
reasons
On 02/12/2014 03:41 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi,
I’m bringing this up out of:
[Custom]: enteredView and leftView callbacks are still confusing
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24314
Could someone clarify exactly why mutation observers can’t satisfy use cases
for custom elements?
Hi all,
I wonder what people think of if we started to rather aggressively deprecate
the horrible API
main-thread sync XHR?
Currently its usage is still way too high (up to 2% based on telemetry data),
but
if all the browsers warned about use of deprecated feature, we might be able to
get
On 02/07/2014 07:32 PM, Scott González wrote:
What about developers who are sending requests as the page is unloading? My
understanding is that sync requests are required. Is this not the case?
We need sendBeacon asap, and browsers could start warn first when sync XHR is
used outside unload
...@apple.com
mailto:m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
mailto:jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Feb 7, 2014 8:57 AM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
mailto:dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
From: Olli Pettay olli.pet
On 12/04/2013 06:27 PM, Feras Moussa wrote:
The editors of the Streams API have reached a milestone where we feel many of
the major issues that have been identified thus far are now resolved and
incorporated in the editors draft.
The editors draft [1] has been heavily updated and reviewed the
+1
On 04/27/2013 05:30 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for Consensus to
publish a First Public Working Draft of the UI Events spec using the
following ED as the basis:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/d4e/raw-file/tip/source_respec.htm
This
On 02/19/2013 10:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
mailto:jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
mailto:ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Dimitri
On 12/14/2012 09:46 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/14/12 2:29 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Per Hixie the Document is associated with both the old and the new
Window. Meaning that XMLHttpRequest will function normally even though
XMLHttpRequest != window.XMLHttpRequest.
I'm not sure it
On 11/02/2012 12:56 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen hallv...@opera.com
mailto:hallv...@opera.com wrote:
The most IMHO elegant solution is what we implemented in Opera: we simply
keep relevant menu entries enabled if there are event
On 10/19/2012 01:19 AM, Alan Stearns wrote:
On 10/18/12 2:51 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 10/19/2012 12:08 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
CSS Regions regionLayoutUpdate brings up an issue I think we need to
get ahead of:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id
On 10/02/2012 11:55 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure criteria to
determine if pointerlock succeeds that are not outlined in the
specification. Firefox uses the fullscreen change event to determine failure
and chrome requires the pointer
On 10/03/2012 12:59 AM, Florian Bösch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 10/02/2012 11:55 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure
criteria
On 09/09/2012 06:33 PM, Mike Wilson wrote:
Is it defined how the browser should behave wrt calling
unrelated event handlers in user code during synchronous
XHR requests? (with unrelated I refer to events that are
not related to the ongoing synchronous request itself)
I didn't find statements
On 09/06/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi b...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On 09/06/2012 09:30 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 09/06/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi b...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012
On 09/01/2012 11:19 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
David,
Thanks for preparing this summary—I just wanted to note that I still stand
behind my original, reality based arguments.
One comment inline..
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
A Sync API for workers is
On 09/01/2012 11:38 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
So far, they all look async. Just calling them sync doesn't make them sync.
Sure they are sync. They are sync inside worker. We all know that we must not
introduce
new sync APIs in the main thread.
On 08/22/2012 10:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
mailto:o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org
mailto:rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Glenn Maynard
On 08/22/2012 11:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:08 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
mailto:o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6
(And this time to the mailing list too. Sorry for spamming)
On 08/22/2012 11:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:08 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
On 08/22/2012 11:28 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
mailto:m...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:08 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:44 PM, Maciej
On 08/07/2012 03:29 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
5ms is quite low when the aim is 60Hz updates... but with
incremental/generational GCs 5ms sounds very much possible.
5ms
On 08/04/2012 12:16 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, b...@pettay.fi mailto:b...@pettay.fi b...@pettay.fi
mailto:b...@pettay.fi wrote:
The update rate depends on the device. Tablet updates reach way beyond
120HZ and even my 3D mouse clocks in at about 500
On 07/12/2012 12:07 PM, Yuval Sadan wrote:
I think we need to realize that a lot of the APIs that have been
designed in the past aren't terribly good APIs.
The IndexedDB API is rather new, and the manner in which it consistently uses
event handlers on returned objects is rather
On 07/05/2012 08:00 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 03:11 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 01:38
But anyhow, event based API is ok to me.
In general I prefer events/event listeners over other callbacks.
On 07/05/2012 11:37 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 07/05/2012 08:00 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 03:11 AM
On 07/05/2012 05:15 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 08:00 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
On 07/05/2012 03:11 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
So, it is very
On 07/05/2012 08:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com
mailto:w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 08:00 AM, Adam Barth wrote
Btw, is there something unique with UndoManager which causes implementation
problems in WebKit?
There are plenty of other APIs not using eventlisteners which take JS
callbacks: setTimeout, requestAnimationFrame,
Google's File System API, PeerConnection ... Why aren't those causing problems?
We
On 07/05/2012 10:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Also, I think consistency matters a lot here. I'm not aware of any other
Web-facing API that takes a pure object with callback functions.
Except of course event listeners. Well, addEventListener can take an object
with _a_ callback function.
I
On 07/05/2012 01:38 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
Sukolsak has been implementing the Undo Manager API in WebKit but the fact
undoManager.transact() takes a pure JS object with callback functions is
making it very challenging. The problem is that this object needs to be kept
alive by either
On 07/05/2012 03:11 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 01:38 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
Sukolsak has been implementing the Undo Manager API in WebKit
On 07/05/2012 03:25 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 07/05/2012 03:11 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 07/05/2012 01:38 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
Sukolsak has been
On 06/26/2012 11:58 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
mailto:ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
end-of-microtask or end-of-task
On 06/20/2012 10:36 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
Ojan points out
that simply using end-of-task could expose low-level implementation
detail of the parser to script (such as how
On 06/20/2012 10:36 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
Ojan points out
that simply using end-of-task could expose low-level implementation
detail of the parser to script (such as how
On 06/20/2012 11:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Hi,
The Web Notifications WG is planning to move Web Notifications to W3C
Last Call meaning we don't intend to change it. But we might have
missed something and would therefore appreciate your review of
On 06/19/2012 11:37 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org
mailto:rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
mailto:jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rafael
On 06/17/2012 03:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote:
I too thought we had intentionally spec'd them to not fire during load.
The HTML spec is clear about this WRT Mutation Events:
On 06/17/2012 10:17 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
mailto:jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com
mailto:rafa...@google.com wrote:
I too thought we had intentionally spec'd
On 06/05/2012 09:31 AM, Jer Noble wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
If you implemented that proposal as-is then authors would usually need a
listener on the document as well as the element, and as Chris pointed
out, it's simpler to just always
I don't understand this.
The explainer doesn't look like something which should become a
recommendation.
It just, well, explains how the various proposed APIs work.
So, why do we need explainer as FPWD?
-Olli
On 05/02/2012 11:22 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
As discussed during WebApps' May 1
On 05/03/2012 12:48 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Instead of traditional DOM events being used for Other Events[1], and
considering the high frequency of Gamepad state changes, it might make
sense to provide an API similar to MutationObserver, where a
MutationRecord is created that has snapshots of
On 04/24/2012 09:43 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
Based on my reading of DOM4, initEvent makes it possible to transform
a trusted event into a non-trusted event and dispatch it. Is that
intentional?
AFAIK, yes
It is only currently supported in Firefox and Opera. In
IE, Chrome and Safari, the
On 04/25/2012 12:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:02:22 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
(DOM3's language
about default actions confuses this; I suggest reading DOM4's event
section to get a good picture of how this actually works.)
Or rather how the DOM4
On 03/20/2012 06:09 PM, Gordon Williams wrote:
Hi,
I recently posted on
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72154
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=716765
about the change to XHR which now appears to be working its way into
Mainstream users' browsers.
As requested, I'll pursue
I think we should try to get rid of sync XHR in window context.
It takes time, and can be painful, but sync APIs in window
context are just not acceptable.
-Olli
On 03/20/2012 08:03 PM, Gordon Williams wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions...
Just so I'm certain: The #3 option is to run in a
On 02/24/2012 01:38 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Can we disallow mutation events inside shadow DOM?
Sounds good to me.
Whatever shadow dom spec will be implemented, mutation events shouldn't
fire there. Mutation observers should work.
-Olli
There is no legacy content that depends on mutation
On 02/24/2012 02:10 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
Just to be clear on this: what is the status of mutation observers?
They are in DOM 4. The API may still change a bit, but
there is already one implementation, and another one close to
ready.
If
there any chance shadow dom beats mutation
So, if I haven't made it clear before,
doing the initial standardization work in CG sounds ok to me.
I do expect that there will be a WG eventually, but perhaps
CG is a faster and more lightweight way to start - well continue from
what XG did.
-Olli
On 01/31/2012 06:01 PM, Glen Shires wrote:
On 01/09/2012 04:59 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi All,
As I indicated in [1], WebApps already has a relatively large number of
specs in progress and the group has agreed to add some new specs. As
such, to review any new charter addition proposals, I think we need at
least the following:
1.
quite
small, and then add new features if/when needed.
-Olli
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Olli Pettay [mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:13 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: ext Satish S; Peter Beverloo; Glen Shires; public-webapps@w3.org;
public-xg
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
mailto:ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls
jar...@webkit.org mailto:jar...@webkit.org wrote:
1. The spec says the timeout
On 12/21/2011 08:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com
On 12/17/2011 04:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:08:55 +0100, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
All - What are the opinions on what, if anything, to do with XBL2
vis-a-vis the charter update? Leave it on the REC track, stop work and
publish it as a WG Note,
Hi all,
few comments about the API
(1)
currently
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/default/mouse-lock.html uses
VoidCallback which isn't defined anywhere.
I guess there should be something like
void lock (in Element target,
optional in LockSuccessCallback successCallback,
On 12/15/2011 11:27 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
Hi all,
few comments about the API
(1)
currently
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/__webevents/raw-file/default/__mouse-lock.html
On 12/16/2011 01:04 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 12/15/2011 11:27 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Olli Pettay
olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=711276
and https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74660
On 12/16/2011 01:49 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 12/16/2011 01:04 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet
On 11/29/2011 07:58 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi all,
I've been looking into the command element
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-command-element and how
a toolbar might be built
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#building-menus-and-toolbars by
them in the last several
On 12/12/2011 03:12 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
mailto:ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:44:58 +0100, Jarred Nicholls
jar...@sencha.com mailto:jar...@sencha.com wrote:
I understand that's how you
On 11/15/2011 09:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Anne van Kesterenann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:55:25 +0100, Jonas Sickingjo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yes, I think cross-origin should not work with sync. That is currently the
only synchronous
Hi all,
I think we should strongly encourage web devs to move away from
sync XHR (in Window context, not in Workers). It is bad for UI
responsiveness.
Unfortunately sync XHR has been used quite often with the old
text/xml types. But maybe we could disable sync XHR for the new
types, and also
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
