[Bug 23878] Define a fetch registry

2016-08-24 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23878 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |MOVED

[Bug 24072] Clarify handling of neutered objects

2016-08-24 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24072 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug 26153] Allow ArrayBuffer as argument to send()

2016-08-24 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26153 Bug 26153 depends on bug 24072, which changed state. Bug 24072 Summary: Clarify handling of neutered objects https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24072 What|Removed |Added

Re: CfC: FPWD for Input Events

2016-08-23 Thread chaals
With expressions of support, and no objections, this Call for Consensus passes. Thanks - I'll work with Johannes and the Team Contacts to get this published as soon as we can... cheers 14.08.2016, 14:31, "cha...@yandex-team.ru" : > Hi, > > This is a Call for Consensus on

Re: CFC to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed Recommendation

2016-08-23 Thread Léonie Watson
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.

Re: customized built-in element questions

2016-08-22 Thread Dominic Cooney
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Mark Giffin wrote: > I have two questions I cannot seem to find the answer to in the Custom > Elements spec, > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-custom-elements-20160721/ > > 1. Can I use the is= syntax for more than one customized built-in

Re: [Custom Elements] Should I write v1 Custom Elements in a way backwards compatible with v0 API?

2016-08-22 Thread Dominic Cooney
I implemented custom elements in Chrome (twice.) This looks reasonable to me. The exact timing of createdCallback and constructor running, and errors around element creation, are different. If authors stick to the restrictions of custom elements "v1" they should be fine, because they're more

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

2016-08-21 Thread Léonie Watson
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

[Custom Elements] Should I write v1 Custom Elements in a way backwards compatible with v0 API?

2016-08-20 Thread /#!/JoePea
Due to the renaming of some class methods (attached/detached to connected/disconnected) and removal of createdCallback in favor of constructors (which is a good thing!), I find myself writing my WebComponent base class (class-factory mixin) as follows. My question is, should I be doing what I'm

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

2016-08-19 Thread Léonie Watson
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

RE: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

2016-08-17 Thread Adrian Bateman
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:38:59, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote: > Sorry about that. Somehow that PR slipped through the cracks. I've commented > on the PR. > > Anybody knows what the deal is with the ipr check? What makes it fail, and if > it fails who is supposed to do what to not make it fail?

Re: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

2016-08-17 Thread Marijn Kruisselbrink
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > I won't be editing it either. > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Marcos Caceres > wrote: > >> On August 16, 2016 at 6:31:31 PM, Zhen Zhang (izgz...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have a

WG Decision on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

2016-08-17 Thread Adrian Bateman
The chairs have published details of the Working Group decision on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension in HTML. In short, most of the CfC carried without objection but there were some objections related to the longdesc examples. For convenience, the decision text is pasted

Re: CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

2016-08-17 Thread Léonie Watson
+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

Re: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

2016-08-16 Thread Arun Ranganathan
I won't be editing it either. On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On August 16, 2016 at 6:31:31 PM, Zhen Zhang (izgz...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have a PR on GitHub regarding some issues of wording in current File > API spec:

CFC to publish WebIDL-1 as a Proposed Recommendation

2016-08-16 Thread Léonie Watson
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].

Re: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

2016-08-16 Thread Marcos Caceres
On August 16, 2016 at 6:31:31 PM, Zhen Zhang (izgz...@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi, > > I have a PR on GitHub regarding some issues of wording in current File API > spec: https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/pull/42 > , but nobody ever responded me there. > I wonder if I should discuss the patch somewhere

[fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

2016-08-16 Thread Zhen Zhang
Hi, I have a PR on GitHub regarding some issues of wording in current File API spec: https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/pull/42 , but nobody ever responded me there. I wonder if I should discuss the patch somewhere else? Thanks you, - Zhen

CfC: FPWD for Input Events

2016-08-14 Thread chaals
Hi, This is a Call for Consensus on the proposition "Publish the Input Events specification at https://w3c.github.io/input-events/ as a First Public Working Draft". Please reply before the end of the day on 22 August, either in this email thread or by adding a +1 or -1 to the proposal which

CfC: Pointer Lock to Proposed Recommendation; deadline August 20

2016-08-13 Thread Xiaoqian Wu
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 consider the test results shows interoperability and the changes since CR are not substantive. The test results for Pointer

[Bug 26917] For any chunk, progress event should be fired at least in 50ms since the arrival of the chunk

2016-08-12 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26917 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 12837] Define unloading document cleanup steps

2016-08-12 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12837 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug 25589] To improve readability, set response to null rather than network error

2016-08-12 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25589 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

[Bug 28505] Synchronous XHR removal makes patching Error.prepareStackTrace impossible

2016-08-12 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28505 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

Re: Service Workers meeting info

2016-08-11 Thread Léonie Watson
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

[Bug 20322] Upload progress events vs CORS

2016-08-11 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20322 Anne changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

2016-08-11 Thread Léonie Watson
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

Re: Service Workers meeting info

2016-08-11 Thread Jake Archibald
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/. On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 11:52 Léonie Watson wrote: > Hello WP, > >

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

2016-08-11 Thread Léonie Watson
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

RE: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

2016-08-09 Thread Ali Alabbas
+1 > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:07:10, Alexander Schmitz wrote: > > +1 > > Alexander Schmitz > jQuery Foundation > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Dylan Barrell > wrote: > > > +1 > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM,

Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

2016-08-09 Thread Dylan Barrell
+1 On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > 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

Re: Leaving Mozilla

2016-08-09 Thread Léonie Watson
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

Re: CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

2016-08-09 Thread Léonie Watson
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

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

2016-08-08 Thread Mona Rekhi
+1 via CloudMagic Email On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 1:21 PM, L?onie Watson > wrote: Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) on the following proposal for referencing the Image Description

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

2016-08-08 Thread John Foliot
Despite lingering concerns about removing a valid attribute from the table of attributes in the document, in the interest of cooperation and collaborative consensus building I will agree with this CfC. JF On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Léonie Watson wrote: > Hello WP, > > This

Leaving Mozilla

2016-08-05 Thread Jonas Sicking
Hi All, 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. I'm not certain where we'll end up after the honeymoon, or what either of us will work with. Because of this, my last day at Mozilla was

CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

2016-08-05 Thread Léonie Watson
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.

Re: Meeting between Web platform and ARIA at TPAC

2016-08-04 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
Hi Rich Cc+ Adrian - co-chair of the WG On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:00:18 +0200, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote: Leonie, Charles, I would like to request a 90 minute meeting on Friday at TPAC. We generally don't have more than 60 minutes for meeting sessions. You're

Re: Meeting between Web platform and ARIA at TPAC

2016-08-04 Thread Léonie Watson
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

RE: Meeting between Web platform and ARIA at TPAC

2016-08-04 Thread Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
I will be there as well. Tzviya Tzviya Siegman Information Standards Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsieg...@wiley.com From: Shane McCarron [mailto:sh...@spec-ops.io] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:18 PM To: Brian Kardell Cc: Rich Schwerdtfeger; Léonie Watson; Chaals

Re: Meeting between Web platform and ARIA at TPAC

2016-08-04 Thread Shane McCarron
I will like to attend this as well if I can dodge the other bullets that day. On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Brian Kardell wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger > wrote: > >> Leonie, Charles, >> >> I would like to request a

WPWG meetings at TPAC

2016-08-04 Thread Léonie Watson
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 -

Meeting between Web platform and ARIA at TPAC

2016-08-04 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
Leonie, Charles, I would like to request a 90 minute meeting on Friday at TPAC. Of critical importance is the discussion regarding the requirements around Web Components. Some issues I know we need to discuss are: 1. ARIA 2.0 extensibility 2. ARIA 2.0 needed semantics 3. Ability to reference

CFC: Publish a FPWD of IndexedDB 2.0

2016-08-03 Thread Léonie Watson
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

Type correction Re: New editors for Clipboard API spec

2016-07-30 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 02:16:17 +0200, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: Hi, I'm happy to announce Grisha *Lyukshin*. Sorry Grisha and Gary Kačmarčik as the new editors of the Clipboard API specification, and to thank them for volunteering, cheers -- Charles

Fwd: Minutes / results of editing meeting

2016-07-30 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
FYI --- Forwarded message --- From: "Chaals McCathie Nevile" To: "public-editing...@w3.org" Cc: Subject: Minutes / results of meeting Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:51:18 +0200 Hi folks, Detailed minutes are at

New editors for Clipboard API spec

2016-07-30 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
Hi, I'm happy to announce Grisha Lyushkin and Gary Kačmarčik as the new editors of the Clipboard API specification, and to thank them for volunteering, as well as Hallvord for the work he put into it until now. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex

Re: Draft recharter proposal

2016-07-30 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:29:44 +0200, Olli Pettay wrote: 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:

Re: Draft recharter proposal

2016-07-29 Thread Olli Pettay
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:

Draft recharter proposal

2016-07-29 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
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: https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/new As per the change

Re: Service Worker issues

2016-07-28 Thread Ben Kelly
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > caches.open("blog - 2016-06-10 14:14:23 -0700").then(c => c.keys()) > > Promise { : "pending" } > > Note that this test will *not* tell you whether or not c.keys() > returns a promise; the .then callback is allowed

Re: Service Worker issues

2016-07-28 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
> caches.open("blog - 2016-06-10 14:14:23 -0700").then(c => c.keys()) > Promise { : "pending" } Note that this test will *not* tell you whether or not c.keys() returns a promise; the .then callback is allowed to return a non-promise, and .then() always returns a promise regardless. You have to

Re: Service Worker issues

2016-07-27 Thread Ben Kelly
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > The following is a mix of spec and implementation issues that I > encountered in my as-of-yet unsuccessful attempt to make use of service > workers in the ASF Board Agenda tool. > First, let me say thank you for the

Service Worker issues

2016-07-27 Thread Sam Ruby
The following is a mix of spec and implementation issues that I encountered in my as-of-yet unsuccessful attempt to make use of service workers in the ASF Board Agenda tool. 1) the "offline fallback" use case for Service Workers involves intercepting fetch requests, issuing the request, and

Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-15 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:15:32 +0200, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: This is a call for consensus on the proposition: Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 - https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft. With a positive response and no

Review request: Wake Lock API

2016-07-12 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
Hello all, The Device & Sensors Working Group has asked us to review the Wake Lock API, on it way to Candidate Recommendation status: https://www.w3.org/TR/wake-lock/ Their specific question is whether the API "fits" with the rest of the Web Platform. Please provide feedback before the end of

Service Workers meeting info

2016-07-12 Thread Léonie Watson
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.

RE: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-11 Thread Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
+1 to publish ​ * katie * Katie Haritos-Shea Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryla...@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog -Original Message- From: Léonie Watson

Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-11 Thread Dylan Barrell
+1 to publish On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > 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

Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

2016-07-11 Thread marcos
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 10:45 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: > > The goal of publishing this as a REC is not to have a final document nor to > please only > the lawyers. The goal is to provide a document that contains the parts of the > WebIDL > syntax that are implemented, and the

Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

2016-07-11 Thread Yves Lafon
> On 10 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > On July 9, 2016 at 6:24:56 AM, Domenic Denicola (d...@domenic.me) wrote: >> From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com] >> >>> The purpose of the “Level 1” document is to serve as a stable reference for

Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-11 Thread Léonie Watson
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

RE: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

2016-07-10 Thread Marcos Caceres
On July 9, 2016 at 6:24:56 AM, Domenic Denicola (d...@domenic.me) wrote: > From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com] > > > The purpose of the “Level 1” document is to serve as a stable reference for > > W3C specs that > link to WebIDL. It contains a subset of the WebIDL syntax

Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

2016-07-09 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 22:21:10 +0200, Domenic Denicola wrote: From: Travis Leithead [mailto:travis.leith...@microsoft.com] The purpose of the “Level 1” document is to serve as a stable reference for W3C specs that link to WebIDL. It contains a subset of the WebIDL syntax

Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

2016-07-08 Thread Travis Leithead
While editing work continues on the "second edition" of WebIDL here: http://heycam.github.io/webidl/, we have been fine-tuning the "Level 1" CR snapshot [1] to replace and supersede the 2012 version [2]. The "Level 1" editors are making final tweaks to the draft and tests, and hope to be ready

Re: Thank you Hallvord (looking for Clipboard API editor…)

2016-07-06 Thread Grisha Lyukshin
Hi Chaals, I am interested. I will little 'r' you for details. Thank you. --grisha Sent from Outlook From: Chaals McCathie Nevile Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:24:12 PM To: public-webapps WG Subject:

Thank you Hallvord (looking for Clipboard API editor…)

2016-07-06 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
Dear all, part of this mail is to thank Hallvord Steen for his efforts in this group over a number of years. As a result of changed employment he is stepping down as a member and in particular as editor of the Clipboard APIs specification, which is just one part of the contribution he has

Re: Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-05 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
Hi Charles, I see this is designed to provide semantic-level scripting and markup for accessibility: "This specification is limited to providing a semantic-level markup language and associated semantic-level scripting APIs for authoring accessible pages on the Web ranging from static

Call for Consensus: Publish HTML 5.2 FPWD?

2016-07-05 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
This is a call for consensus on the proposition: Publish the current editors' draft of HTML 5.2 - https://w3c.github.io/html/ - as a First Public Working Draft. Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses are preferred. In an effort to find a smoother way to assess consensus,

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-25 Thread Léonie Watson
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. --

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-21 Thread Léonie Watson
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+

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-21 Thread Léonie Watson
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

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-21 Thread Léonie Watson
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

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-21 Thread Takayoshi Kochi
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?) On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote: > I've

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-20 Thread Vincent Scheib
I've discussed more with Xiaoqian and Léonie and support a CR now with this proposal: Move to a CR for the v1 Pointer Lock specification without Shadow DOM changes, and a note on accessibility. Implementations are nearly consistent for v1 and it can move to a published status sooner. We can

[selectors-api] typo in specification

2016-06-18 Thread Kirill Topolyan
Hello. At the moment I'm translating "Selectors API Level 1" [1] and it seems I have noticed a typo in the original document. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api/ Section 6.4: "If result is invalid ([SELECT], section 12), raisea a SYNTAX_ERR exception ([DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE], section 1.4) and

RE: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-17 Thread Léonie Watson
From: Vincent Scheib [mailto:sch...@google.com] Sent: 16 June 2016 12:34 “An accessibility review and handling of this [accessibility issue #1] are still needed and will likely cause a CR cycle. To avoid unnecessary work I propose CR to be deferred until that work is complete.” I

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-17 Thread Michiel Bijl
Woohoo! —Michiel > On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:11, Léonie Watson wrote: > > 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

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-16 Thread Takayoshi Kochi
I'm working on updating text to incorporate Shadow DOM in pointer lock spec. https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/192 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote: > Shadow dom concepts will also be incorporated. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chaals

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-16 Thread Vincent Scheib
Shadow dom concepts will also be incorporated. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile < cha...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:30 +0200, Vincent Scheib > wrote: > > An accessibility review and handling of this [accessibility issue #1] are

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-16 Thread Chaals McCathie Nevile
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:30 +0200, Vincent Scheib wrote: An accessibility review and handling of this [accessibility issue #1] are still needed and will likely cause a CR cycle. To avoid unnecessary work I propose CR to be deferred until that work is complete.

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-16 Thread Vincent Scheib
An accessibility review and handling of this [accessibility issue #1] are still needed and will likely cause a CR cycle. To avoid unnecessary work I propose CR to be deferred until that work is complete. [accessibility issue #1] https://github.com/w3c/pointerlock/issues/1 On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at

Re: [Service Workers] meeting july/august?

2016-06-14 Thread Ben Kelly
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile < > cha...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> at the last meeting people suggested another meeting in July/August. >> Should we be trying to schedule one? >> >

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-14 Thread Dylan Barrell
abstain On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Michiel Bijl wrote: > Looks good, +1 > > —Michiel > > On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson wrote: > > Hello WP, > > This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer > Lock as a Candidate

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-14 Thread Michiel Bijl
Looks good, +1 —Michiel > On 13 Jun 2016, at 18:12, Léonie Watson 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

Re: [clipboard] Add RTF to the "mandatory data types" list?

2016-06-13 Thread Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:01 PM James M. Greene wrote: >> That behavior is really all I wanted, i.e. "don't let the browser >> discard/ignore valid RTF clipboard data". On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Cheng wrote: > I don't think I would

RE: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-13 Thread Travis Leithead
+1 in favor of supporting a republishing as CR. -Original Message- From: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:13 AM To: 'public-webapps WG' Subject: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR Hello WP, This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to

CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

2016-06-13 Thread Léonie Watson
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

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-13 Thread Léonie Watson
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 > To:

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-07 Thread Alexander Schmitz
+1 Alexander Schmitz jQuery Foundation On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Ian Pouncey wrote: > +1 > > On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: >> >> Hello WP, >> >> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML >> Working Draft

[clipboard][DnD][DataTransfer] custom types and security

2016-06-07 Thread Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
Hi public-webapps, or the sub-set of your that are interested in clipboard and DnD stuff: we've started an interesting thread regarding DataTransfer, custom types and security here https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1244 and implementor input is especially welcome. Allow me to paste parts of

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-06 Thread Ian Pouncey
+1 On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: > 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. >

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-03 Thread Adrian Roselli
+1 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dylan Barrell wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: > >> +1 >> >> --joanie >> >> On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: >> > Hello WP, >> > >> > This is a call for consensus

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-03 Thread Dylan Barrell
+1 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: > +1 > > --joanie > > On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > > Hello WP, > > > > This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML > > Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-03 Thread Joanmarie Diggs
+1 --joanie On 06/02/2016 08:48 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > 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. > >

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-03 Thread Léonie Watson
> 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

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-03 Thread Zero
+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR. Best Regards, Shaohang Yang -邮件原件- 发件人: Léonie Watson [mailto:t...@tink.uk] 发送时间: 2016年6月2日 20:48 收件人: 'public-webapps WG' 主题: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR) Hello WP, This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-02 Thread Sangwhan Moon
> On Jun 3, 2016, at 01:35, Chaals McCathie Nevile > wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:14:38 +0200, wrote: > >> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of >> this mailing list. >> >> For the purpose of progressing a

Re: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

2016-06-02 Thread Alex Danilo
+1 for moving HTML5.1 to CR. Alex On 3 June 2016 at 05:30, Gez Lemon wrote: > +1 > > On 2 June 2016 at 13:48, Léonie Watson wrote: > >> Hello WP, >> >> This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML >> Working Draft (WD) as a

[Bug 23780] Check XMLHttpRequest and Notification don' t break given the new script settings object stuff

2016-06-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23780 Bug 23780 depends on bug 18242, which changed state. Bug 18242 Summary: Not clear what "script that invoked the method" means exactly in the case of e.g. a.setTimeout(b.postMessage, 0) // called from c

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >