RE: Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon

, May 1, 2013 3:23 AM To: Wez Cc: Gary Kačmarčík (Кошмарчик); Travis Leithead; masay...@d-toybox.com; public-webapps; www-dom Subject: Re: Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon If Masayuki-san is joining and the time is JST-friendly, I would also like to join, but feel free to ignore me if not. On

Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon

I’d like to propose we start a call to begin to work toward resolving the final bugs in the spec and for other business related to getting DOM L3 Events to CR. On the call we can workout what subsequent meetings we should also arrange. Does next Tuesday (May 7th), at 11 am PST work your you? If

RE: publish FPWD of UI Events; deadline May 4

Microsoft supports this. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:31 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish FPWD of UI Events; deadline May 4 As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for Consensus t

[WebIDL] Bugs - which are for 1.0 and which are for Second Edition?

Cameron, There's 50 some-odd bugs under the bugzilla component for WebIDL. Many of them look like simple editorial fixes that could be applied to the CR draft, but others are feature requests, or issues related to new features added to the Second Edition. Are you currently tracking which bugs

RE: [IME] Preparing some feedback

oposal for more detail. -Jianfeng Lin From: Kenji Baheux [mailto:kenjibah...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:32 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: hb...@google.com; ko...@google.com; public-webapps Subject: Re: [IME] Preparing some feedback Thanks Travis. We are eager to hear your feedbac

RE: [webcomponents] self-documenting component.html files

: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:38 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Mike Kamermans; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [webcomponents] self-documenting component.html files On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: > For the attribute changes, you can use MutationObservers, unless you

RE: [webcomponents] self-documenting component.html files

For the attribute changes, you can use MutationObservers, unless you need to have the values updated synchronously, in which case, you can always fallback to Mutation Events or hook the relevant APIs with ES5 defineProperty overrides…? Generally, I think all the tools you need for notifications

RE: Reminder: Please register for Face to face by Friday

Ah, good to know. Thanks. From: Chris Wilson [mailto:cwi...@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:15 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Chaals Nevile; public-webapps WG Subject: Re: Reminder: Please register for Face to face by Friday Paypal is in the same building complex with eBay (the address

RE: Reminder: Please register for Face to face by Friday

Chaals, The wiki says the host is eBay with an address given. Is the address still accurate? If not, will someone who knows the correct address update the wiki? http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/April2013Meeting -Original Message- From: Chaals Nevile [mailto:w...@chaals.com] Sent: Wednes

[IME] Preparing some feedback

Thanks for submitting these updates to the Input Method Editor API. I've had an opportunity to review them and would like to offer some feedback for the spec. On the IE team, we have also been working on building an IME-related API, but one geared specifically toward working with the operating s

RE: publish WD of Input Editor Method (IME) API; deadline March 28

Microsoft supports this publication. > -Original Message- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:40 AM > To: public-webapps > Subject: CfC: publish WD of Input Editor Method (IME) API; deadline March > 28 > > This is a Call for Consensus (

RE: Streams and Blobs

Also, the Stream object lets you pipe the data from to/from Web Workers, which can be handy in certain scenarios. From: da...@google.com [mailto:da...@google.com] On Behalf Of Darin Fisher [snip] Another thing not to lose sight of is that a Stream abstraction could be useful as an optimization

RE: [editing] Is this the right list to discuss editing?

Alex, work on Editing APIs was ongoing in the Community Group (http://www.w3.org/community/editing/) though their draft is just under a year old. Aryeh may have more current info... From: Alex Mogilevsky [mailto:alex...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:14 PM To: public-webapps@w

RE: exposing CANVAS or something like it to Web Workers

t you could imagine that an event could be used to signal that new frames were ready from the producer—then the main thread would know to pop. From: Gregg Tavares [mailto:g...@google.com] Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 3:14 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Ian Hickson; Charles Pritchard; Web Applicati

RE: exposing CANVAS or something like it to Web Workers

Having thought about this before, I wonder why we don’t use a producer/consumer model rather than a transfer of canvas ownership model? A completely orthogonal idea (just my rough 2c after reading Gregg’s proposal), is to have an internal frame buffer accessible via a WorkerCanvas API which sup

RE: Re: Keyboard events for accessible RIAs and Games

I think we should give it another try by including it in our UI Events spec. I like the idea of adding the static queryKeyCap(code) API to Keyboard events. I wonder about the name though. A "key capability" doesn't sound right. Are we querying for a key's locale name? e.g., queryKeyLocaleName(co

RE: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage

Jack, With all due respect, this feedback is a little late. The spec in question is now at candidate recommendation, and there are multiple interoperable implementation in existence. While this is not to say that the spec cannot be changed at this point, I would anticipate that many participant

RE: publish FPWD of HTML Templates; deadline January 31

> -Original Message- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > > Rafael and the other Editors of the HTML Templates spec would like to > publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of "HTML Templates" and this > is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so, using the following ED a

RE: [Workers] Worker same-origin and usage in JS libraries...

> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > My plan is to make it so that cross-origin URLs start cross-origin > > workers. The main unresolved question is how to do this in an opt-in > > manner. The best idea I've come up with so far is having scrip

RE: Re: Event.key complaints?

com [mailto:gary...@google.com] On Behalf Of Gary Kacmarcik (?) Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:09 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Re: Event.key complaints? On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Travis Leithead mailto:travis.leith...@micro

RE: Re: Event.key complaints?

Awesome stuff Gary. (And I like that we won't need to change the behavior of key or char in your proposal—that part made me really nervous, since IE has shipped this stuff since 9, and I know our new Win8 app model is using it.) I'm planning in the short term to start a new DOM4 Events spec, wh

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

> From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or > > individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work > > as author in the contex

RE: [Clipboard API] The before* events

ent. The CSS property means that the developer's request can be honored by the user agent without script getting in the way of (and possibly delaying) the action. From: o...@google.com [mailto:o...@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:38 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc:

RE: Event.key complaints?

nches and couldn't detect it, but wanted to be sure. > -Original Message- > From: Hallvord R. M. Steen [mailto:hallv...@opera.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:37 PM > To: Ojan Vafai > Cc: Travis Leithead; public-weba...@w3c.org > Subject: Re: Event.k

RE: [Clipboard API] The before* events

>I'm looking at the beforecut, beforecopy and beforepaste events. I don't >entirely understand their intent, it seems even more obscure than I expected.. I'm not sure that the use case that these events were originally designed for (which have been obscured by time), are at all relevant to site

Event.key complaints?

Hallvord, sorry I missed your IRC comment in today's meeting, related to DOM3 Events: event.key is still a problem child, authors trying to use it have been complaining both to me and on the mailing list Could you point me to the relevant discussions? The only issues with key th

RE: publish WD of Shadow DOM; deadline Oct 10

> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > > Dimitri would like to publish a new Working Draft of Shadow DOM and this > is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following document as the > basis > file/tip/publish/shadow/index.html>. Pub

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com] > > I wasn't specific enough in my original question, but I did note that I > wasn't referring to construction exceptions, so I'm guessing by your response > that you actually _just_ meant testing for "constructability". I apologize > for not b

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

note in Chome, that's due to the subtle difference in implementation of WebIDL per the above requirement. From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:24 PM To: Cameron McCormack Cc: Travis Leithead; Boris Zbarsky; public-script-co...@w3.org; pub

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] > > On 9/28/12 12:38 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: > > It seems more important to check for the features of the spec, rather > than spec support in general. I would expect if (URL.createObjectURL) for > example. > > You

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] > > On 9/28/12 4:28 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > 1. Should we make it so that if you implement one or more partial > > interfaces but not the actual one, then an empty actual interface is > > implied? > > That's fine by me. > > > 2. Is it reall

RE: [XHR] chunked

> From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Travis Leithead > wrote: > > In my observation of the current IE behavior, the Stream is for download > only. XHR gets the data from the server and buffers it. The con

RE: [XHR] chunked

> From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Travis Leithead > wrote: > > It hasn't been updated in a while, but we're still keen on seeing it > move forward AFAIK: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/

RE: [XHR] chunked

> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> I do somewhat agree that if we had a full "stream" solution in the > >> form of a Stream primitive and .responseType="str

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] > > On 9/21/12 12:39 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: > > I believe that firstly, the File API spec needs to be rationalized > against the URL API > > They're already there. File API explicitly says that if you support UR

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] > > The spec currently says[1]: > >The value of the "prototype" property of an interface object for a >non-callback interface MUST be an object called the interface >prototype object. > > At the same time, we have specs like File API de

RE: Proposal to add USB keycodes to the current DOM3 key events

> From: gary...@google.com [mailto:gary...@google.com] On Behalf Of Gary > > Hi all, > > I've written up a brief proposal to enhance the current DOM Level 3 > key events by adding USB keycodes. > > Here is a link to the proposal document: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJvlUaTBsWa71hIc0X4

RE: Editor's draft created of DOM Parsing and Serialization Spec

> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > > On 8/29/12 7:55 PM, ext Travis Leithead wrote: > > > > Folks, following up on my action item from TPAC 2011 (yeah, I know...), > > the DOM Parsing and Serialization Editor's Draft specification has > >

Editor's draft created of DOM Parsing and Serialization Spec

Folks, following up on my action item from TPAC 2011 (yeah, I know...), the DOM Parsing and Serialization Editor's Draft specification has been created! http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html A list of active bugs against the spec are being maintained against this component in t

RE: Proposal for "Cascading Attribute Sheets" - like CSS, but for attributes!

> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com] > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. > > wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai > wrote: > >> > Meh. I think this loses most of the "CSS is so much more c

RE: [selectors-api] RfC: LCWD of Selectors API Level 1; deadline July 19

> From: Lachlan Hunt [mailto:lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au] > > I'd like feedback from implementers about how best to address the issue. > The options I can think of: > > 1. Disallow all comments within the selector for this API. Throw SyntaxError > when they are used. > 2. Allow comments, but defin

RE: [gamepad] Polling access point

Going to a function-based design is typically preferable (especially to making an attribute non-enumerable). This is the approach taken by getUserMedia. From: scot...@google.com [mailto:scot...@google.com] On Behalf Of Scott Graham Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:02 PM To: public-webapps@w3.org C

RE: DOMParser Errors Should Be Exceptions

Note, I filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17775 to make this change. From: wyc...@gmail.com [mailto:wyc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yehuda Katz Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:12 PM To: Tony Ross Cc: João Eiras; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: DOMParser Errors Should Be Excep

RE: publish WD of Selectors API Level 2; deadline June 25

> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > > Lachlan would like to publish a new Working Draft of the Selectors API Level 2 > spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so using the following Editor's > Draft as > the basis . > > Posit

RE: [selectors-api] Consider backporting find() behavior to querySelector()

> -Original Message- > From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu [mailto:kennyl...@csail.mit.edu] > > (12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote: > > I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to > > not Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it > > does). To find out

RE: www-dom vs public-webapps WAS: [DOM4] Mutation algorithm imposed order on document children

I wouldn't mind. I'm on both lists anyway. Schepers originally saw it as a way of scoping DOM3 Events discussions away from the noise on public-webapps. I'm not sure that's a real big concern anymore. From: o...@google.com [mailto:o...@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai Sent: Tuesday, June 12,

RE: DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

> -Original Message- > From: Pablo Garaizar Sagarminaga [mailto:garai...@deusto.es] > > Hello, > > on Fri, 25 May 2012 16:49:25 -0700 Jonas Sicking > wrote: > > > > This is not yet an official last call, but if you'd like to re-read > > > the spec and provide additional feedback--this i

RE: DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

> -Original Message- > From: Travis Leithead > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 3:31 PM > > Hey folks, > > I'm joining Jacob Rossi to help work on editing the DOM L3 Events spec; I have > some time to address some of the editorial last call comments, and I ho

RE: New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

Thanks. It looks like IE's implementation missed this detail. I'll see about having these tests updated shortly. From: David Levin [mailto:le...@google.com] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:47 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Adrian Bateman; Web Applications Working Group WG (public-weba

RE: [DOM3 Events/DOM4] re-dispatching trusted events with initEvent

[mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi] >Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:23 PM >To: Travis Leithead >Cc: public-weba...@w3c.org; Anne van Kesteren (ann...@opera.com); Jacob >Rossi >Subject: Re: [DOM3 Events/DOM4] re-dispatching trusted events with >initEvent > >On 04/24/2012 09:43 PM, Travi

RE: [DOM3 Events/DOM4] re-dispatching trusted events with initEvent

Glenn, isTrusted is the indicator that helps the web developer distinguish between an event fired by the UA, or one fired by JavaScript (e.g., dispatchEvent). From: Glenn Maynard [mailto:gl...@zewt.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:38 PM To: o...@pettay.fi Cc: Travis Leithead; public-weba

RE: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ?

>-Original Message- >From: Simon Pieters [mailto:sim...@opera.com] >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:27 AM >To: Jarred Nicholls >Cc: Jonas Sicking; public-weba...@w3c.org >Subject: Re: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ? > >On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls

RE: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined

> alerts true in Gecko, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. No IE on hand right now... > That > would be consistent with associating the image with the document that the > constructor object is associated with. alert's true in IE too, FYI.

RE: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26

>-Original Message- >From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:cha...@opera.com] > >On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:24:23 +0100, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> On Monday, 19 March 2012 at 10:58, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >>> Cameron has addressed the comments from Web IDL LC#3 [1] and the bug >>> list only con

RE: DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

>-Original Message- >From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com] > >> It [DOM3 Events] also describes basic concepts such as default actions and >> their >> effect on cancelable events, trusted events, etc., for which having a >> central reference is quite informative. > >Except the

DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

(Cross-post to www-dom for visibility, sorry for dups) Hey folks, I'm joining Jacob Rossi to help work on editing the DOM L3 Events spec; I have some time to address some of the editorial last call comments, and I hope to move through them all pretty quickly. I know there are a variety of opin

RE: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3

I agree to publish. >-Original Message- >From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:10 AM >To: public-webapps; public-script-coord >Subject: CfC: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3 > >Cameron has completed addressing open Web IDL com

[Workers] Worker same-origin and usage in JS libraries...

A new scenario just came to my attention that I thought I might pose to the list. Given the current same-origin restrictions on new Worker(), it is problematic for Worker usage by any JS libraries on a CDN. A site using a CDN simply provides an absolute URL reference to the library, and it is s

RE: What type should .findAll return

From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 6:12 PM > For right now, there are two ways you could quickly go that don't conflict > with ES5.1 at all: > > 1) you can specify that .findAll returns a plain vanilla ECMAScript Array > object. > 2) you can d

Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

This has been an interesting debate, but I'm still a little confused with the outcome (if any). Will someone summarize the current position on these issues: 1. Should "find()" and "findAll()" follow

RE: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18

Is there a comment tracking doc for this LC (e.g., lc2)? >-Original Message- >From: public-script-coord-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-script-coord- >requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow >Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:37 AM >To: public-script-coord; public-webapps >Subject: Remin

RE: New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

Thanks! We'll see about getting these updated... From: David Levin [mailto:le...@google.com] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:33 PM To: Adrian Bateman Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org); Israel Hilerio; Travis Leithead; Brian Raymor; Kris Krueger Subject: Re

RE: publish LC#2 of Web IDL; deadline September 16

I support publishing this LC#2. I will do a second review of the updated text to see if Microsoft has any further LC comments. Thanks! >-Original Message- >From: public-script-coord-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-script-coord- >requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow >Sent: Friday, Sep

Re: DOM Mutation Events Replacement: When to deliver mutations

On 08/11/2011 03:44 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: > Although everyone seems to agree that mutations should be delivered > after the DOM operations which generated them complete, the question > remains: > >When, exactly, should mutations be delivered? > > The four options I'm aware of are: > > 1)

FW: publish Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline March 7

>From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:19 PM >On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: >> >> Based on our understanding of the web worker lifetime model (Section >> 4.4), dedicated workers are allowed to enter into an "orphaned" state >> where they have a messag

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

Bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12947 -Original Message- From: Travis Leithead Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:49 AM To: Arthur Barstow Cc: Andrew Wilson; Glenn Maynard; Jonas Sicking; Dmitry Lomov; David Levin; ben turner; public-webapps@w3.org; Ian Hickson; ext

FW: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

>From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] >On Jun/8/2011 5:24 PM, ext Kenneth Russell wrote: >> My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies >> the "ports" argument to postMessage as an array of objects to >> transfer, in such a way that we: >> >> - Maintain 10

FW: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

>From: Kenneth Russell [mailto:k...@google.com], Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 >11:15 PM >On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead > wrote: >> Honestly, there's something about this whole discussion that just >> doesn't feel right. >> >> &g

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

Honestly, there's something about this whole discussion that just doesn't feel right. I looks like we're trying to graft-in this new concept of transfer of ownership into the existing postMessage semantics (i.e., object cloning). Any way I try to make it work, it just looks like peaches grafted

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

From: Andrew Wilson [mailto:atwil...@google.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:15 PM On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking mailto:jo...@sicking.cc>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell mailto:k...@google.com>> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard > m

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

cating transfer-of-ownership? Or a new configuration option for postMessage ( { transferOwnership: true } )? -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:02 AM To: ext Jonas Sicking; Kenneth Russell; Ian Hickson Cc: Tra

Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers

> > > The editors' draft of the typed array spec has been updated with a > > > strawman proposal for this zero-copy, transfer-of-ownership behavior: > > > > > > http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/ > > > > > > Feedback would be greatly appreciated. For the purposes of keeping th

RE: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21

wkward iframe >> mechanism you describe. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/12/07/ie9-and-privacy-introducing-tracking-protection-v8.aspx -Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:55 PM To: Andrew Wilson Cc: Ta

RE: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21

(This time before the deadline :) Microsoft has the following additional feedback for this Last Call of Web Workers. We are concerned about the privacy implications we discovered when reviewing the current web workers editor's draft in its treatment of shared workers [1]. Specifically, the spe

RE: publish Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline March 7

Drew Wilson (atwil...@google.com) wrote: > I think this alternate lifetime model is practically unimplementable in a > world where > workers and pages live in multiple processes. The reason is that the linkage > between > nodes in your graph depends on reachability of ports which can't really

RE: [Web Workers] Bug filed and general question

Thanks for your response Ian. I also appreciate your quick response to the bug; I believe I can resolve it now :-) -Original Message- From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:44 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: public-webapps; Adrian Bateman Subject: Re

RE: [Web Workers] Bug filed and general question

Also, have any tests been submitted for this spec yet? From: Travis Leithead Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:10 PM To: public-webapps Cc: Adrian Bateman Subject: [Web Workers] Bug filed and general question Is this the right list to comment about the web workers specification? I filed a bug

[Web Workers] Bug filed and general question

Is this the right list to comment about the web workers specification? I filed a bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11827 and am also interested in participating (or forming?) a regular meeting time to discuss this spec, it's status, and path to REC. It seems to be at LCWD, but

RE: CfC: publish a new Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18

For IE9, we've adopted this attribute as well [msDoNotCheckDomainSecurity] It has different meanings for different types of properites (fields vs. accessors) and causes some proxies to be setup, but generally speaking it does allow requests for the property to go through without an "access denie

RE: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

lacing built-in properties with getter/setters. I think this is too restrictive, especially forward-looking considering how much the DOM is changing and evolving. -Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:22 PM To: Travis Leithead C

[WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current {DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) [2]. When our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to "configurable: false", which completely destroyed the ability to set accessors on the interface

Bubbling/Capturing for XHR + other non-DOM objects

Hi webapps and DOM events folks! (Cross-posting this) This topic came up internally on the IE team, and we thought it would be noteworthy to put this question before the working groups in hopes of getting a spec clarification made. The question is: for XHR and other non-DOM related objects tha

[FastMutation] Updated Proposal on the DOM L3 Events Wiki

Based on the last round of feedback [1], I've updated the proposal for "Selector-based mutation events" (which I keep calling "fast mutation events" for some reason...). Doug, I'm sure you're hard at work on a better acronym... In this edition, I expanded the background sections and enumerated m

RE: [WebIDL] Feedback on the August 30 Editor's draft

enario is still relevant. The meta-point is that it's more about being able to improve the utility of extending or replacing the behavior of these properties. -Travis -Original Message- From: Shiki Okasaka [mailto:sh...@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:10 AM To: Trav

RE: CfC: to publish a new WD of the DOM3 Events spec; deadline Sep 4

Do it! -Travis -Original Message- From: www-dom-requ...@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cameron McCormack Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:25 AM To: Arthur Barstow Cc: public-webapps; www-...@w3.org Subject: Re: CfC: to publish a new WD of the DOM3 Events spec; deadlin

[WebIDL] Feedback on the August 30 Editor's draft

Cameron et al., I have a couple pieces of feedback on this draft. Let me start by saying that this is a wonderful spec-much needed by the working group, and much appreciated by the IE team in relation to the additional clarity it provides for interpretation of other specs. Before I launch into

RE: Window Modes todo

Adding WWW-DOM to widen the audience a bit. >> Having the attributes not be read only and allowing their modification >> before the Event is dispatched seems better to me. But changing this for >> DOM Events in general seems like a larger issue for discussion. Note that this is how it works i

[DOM3Events] Action-375 Guiding Principles Thoughts

http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/375 As part of this action, I've taken two approaches to answer the question: what are the guiding principles for event usage? 1. Circumstances when an author would use an event 2. Principles behind when a new feature should consider cr

[DOM L3] Telecon today?

Wondering if there will be a DOM L3 telecon today? (T-20 minutes...)

RE: Next steps for XHR L1 spec?

Anne, are you building tests for these assertions as you work out some of these details (or more specifically, are you collecting them in a public place)? (I didn't see anything here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/ ) Thanks, -Travis -Original Message- From: public

RE: [DOML3Events] ACTION-267 Proposal for event iterator

N-267 Proposal for event iterator Following up on last year's discussion on adding support for querying DOM elements about already registered event handlers: Travis Leithead wrote on Apr 09, 2008; 08:07pm > In considering a design for the event iterator (allow devs to > enumerate what

[DOM3Events] Regards for teleconference of 4/1/2009

Carmelo and I waited for awhile, but ultimately send our regards. Hopefully we'll be able to meet up with the rest of the group next week. PS. Doug, please update the editor's draft!

RE: [D3E] Draft minutes from 11 March 2009 telcon

My regrets for missing this. Thanks for sending out the notes. I will be unable to make the next meeting on the 18th as well--if any of you will be attending MIX'09, perhaps I'll see you there. -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]

RE: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

I went through the test results in IE8 just to see what the breakdown was and thought I'd pass this info along. I appreciate the thoroughness of these tests, though it bothers me a bit that we get hammered because of the various WebIDL binding issues (e.g., IE8's exception can't be mapped to DO

RE: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

Microsoft also supports publishing. We'd also like to help by contributing tests for this spec. Who's the best point-of-contact for reviewing and checking in tests? -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking

RE: restarting DOM 3 Events calls

Excellent. -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:39 AM To: WebApps WG Subject: restarting DOM 3 Events calls Hi, It would be nice to get DOM 3 Events rolling ag

RE: Do we need to rename the Origin header?

I appreciate that Jonas wanted to give some of the implementations time to consider this request. As he said, we are very close to shipping, and consequently making these types of changes can be tricky. We're discussing this internally at the moment and hope to reply very soon. -Original M

RE: Wheel events

ion. Specing pixel, line, etc., data into the W3C event just does not seem like ideal design for a new event (for which there would be no initial application compatibility) -Original Message- From: Olli Pettay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:44 AM To: Travis

RE: Wheel events

Why does a mouse-wheel event need to include information about scrolling? I thought we already have specified a scroll event for this purpose? It seems to me that the act of scrolling is merely related to the default action of wheel event (which, according to the wiki, specifies a default actio

RE: [DOML3 Events] DOMCharacterDataModified frequency?

in an editing mode such as HTML's contenteditable). -Original Message- From: Olli Pettay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:29 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [DOML3 Events] DOMCharacterDataModified frequency? On 11/07/2008 12:03

<    1   2   3   >