Re: Art steps down - thank you for everything

2016-01-31 Thread Mounir Lamouri
It has been a pleasure working with you Art. Your expertise, leadership and diplomacy will be missed. I wish you the best for your future endeavours! -- Mounir On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, at 12:29, Jungkee Song wrote: > Thank you Art! It has been a great experience and joy working with you. > Your calm

Re: [manifest] Manifest "background_color" with gradient?

2015-10-16 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, at 20:07, Binyamin wrote: > בע"ה > > > How about gradients in "background_color" (linear-gradient, > radial-gradient, repeating-linear-gradient, repeating-radial-gradient)? > Anything delays such spec/implementation? The goal is to be able to paint something on the screen

Re: [manifest] Manifest "splash_screens" with animated "any" size SVG

2015-10-16 Thread Mounir Lamouri
min [mailto:7rai...@inbox.lv] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 15:08 > To: public-webapps@w3.org > Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mou...@lamouri.fr> > Subject: [manifest] Manifest "splash_screens" with animated "any" size > SVG > > בע"ה > > Hi, > &

Re: [manifest] Manifest "sizes" fallback logic

2015-10-13 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi Binyamin, Thank you for your question. I think this behaviour should be left to the implementation there is a lot of UI decisions here that can't be spec'd. For example, Chrome would likely pick a 32x32 image when it needs a 16x16 one but might not do the other way around. Some UA might avoid

Re: [manifest] Manifest "sizes" fallback logic

2015-10-13 Thread Mounir Lamouri
iring missing 40x40 > size image. > > > Binyamin > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Mounir Lamouri <mou...@lamouri.fr> > wrote: > > > Hi Binyamin, > > > > Thank you for your question. > > > > I think this behaviour should b

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

2015-05-06 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, 6 May 2015, at 19:07, Doug Turner wrote: On May 6, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: FWIW, the permission API as it currently stands is pretty trivial to implement. So I don't see a reason to delay until 2017 or even Q3 2015. If the spec is ready to

Standardizing autocapitalize

2015-03-12 Thread Mounir Lamouri
(bcc: public-webapps@) Hi, I would like to standardize the Apple's proprietary autocapitalize attribute. This attribute is widely used and it would probably benefit the platform to have a broader support for it. The implementation cost should be fairly low while it can be very beneficial for the

Re: [manifest] I18N review in progress

2015-03-04 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Thank you for the report. Internationalization is clearly one of the major next milestones for the Manifest. As long as it only contains simple properties like name or icons, i18n is a minor problem because often these properties are fairly stable across locales - at least, even if we are aware

Re: New approach to activities/intents

2014-11-07 Thread Mounir Lamouri
(I realise that my reply went to public-webapps instead of whatwg, not sure why. I will blame my email client :)) On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, at 20:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Wouldn't be worth experimenting first with a list of predefined share endpoints (that you anyway might want to have) and see

Re: New approach to activities/intents

2014-11-06 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, at 03:42, Anne van Kesteren wrote: A couple of us at Mozilla have been trying to figure out how to revive activities/intents for the web. Both work relatively well in closed environments such as Firefox OS and Android, but seem harder to deploy in a generic way on the web.

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

2014-10-02 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old TR/? -- Mounir On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, at 20:36, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 9/25/14 9:26 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

2014-10-01 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 23:26, Mounir Lamouri wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

2014-09-18 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 08:28, Jonas Sicking wrote: I think it's likely to result in many implementation bugs if we rely on this being defined buried inside an algorithm rather than at least mentioned at the definition of the property. I think it's good feedback. I could probably make this

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

2014-09-15 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 06:50, Frederick Hirsch wrote: [cross posted to DAP] I’d like to point out that work such as this would be allowed under the W3C Device APIs WG charter [1] if this is of interest (not being sure of current plans): Arthur, would that work be aligned with the WebApps

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

2014-09-12 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote: Sorry, my first comment is a naming bikeshed issue. Feel free to ignore as it's coming in late, but I hadn't thought of it until just now. I remember a wise person who once said never count on me to bikeshed names. I think he was named Jonas

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

2014-09-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, at 03:23, Edward O'Connor wrote: We should be avoiding adding features to the platform that have to resort to explicit permissioning. Instead of adding features which require prompting for permission, we should be designing features—like drag drop or input type=file—that

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

2014-09-04 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, at 01:33, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote: Given there's good discussion going on at the Paris meeting right now [4] and the topic is on the agenda, I’m expecting more input from the meeting participants on how to proceed. Could you share here the outcome of that discussion if not

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

2014-09-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
the one you wrote above: permissions.has({ name: 'bluetooth', devices: 'fitbit' }); because I understand what the call is trying to do. In addition, as you pointed, it gives a lot of flexibility. On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, at 05:45, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 9/2/14, 9:51 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote

Proposal for a Permissions API

2014-09-02 Thread Mounir Lamouri
TL;DR: Permissions API would be a single entry point for a web page to check if using API /foo/ would prompt, succeed or fail. You can find the chromium.org design document in [1]. # Use case # The APIs on the platform are lacking a way to check whether the user has granted them. Except the

Re: Screen Orientation Feedback

2014-08-08 Thread Mounir Lamouri
+ri...@opera.com On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, at 07:14, Jonas Sicking wrote: Hi All, I think the current interaction between the screen orientation and device orientation specs is really unfortunate. Any time that you use the device orientation in order to render something on screen, you have to

Re: [Screen Orientation] Best Practice wording comment

2014-07-28 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, at 14:34, Bruno Racineux wrote: Just took a peak at the latest spec [1], since Chrome Canary breaks my code made for the previous spec and I have to update to a dual screen.orientation object|string context (It was previously a string). Good to see the new 'natural'

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

2014-06-24 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, at 10:45, Glenn Adams wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote: Even if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now obsolete), the V2 stuff is already widely supported and heavily relied on by browser vendors. IMO, it's

Re: WebApp installation via the browser

2014-05-31 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Sat, 31 May 2014, at 10:40, Jeffrey Walton wrote: I have a question about Use Cases for Installable WebApps located at https://w3c-webmob.github.io/installable-webapps/. Under section Add to Homescreen, the document states: ... giving developers the choice to tightly integrate their

Re: [manifest] Fetching restriction, Re: [manifest] Update and call for review

2014-05-28 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, 28 May 2014, at 8:59, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On May 27, 2014 at 2:30:32 PM, Jonas Sicking (jo...@sicking.cc) wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: The only way that gmail would allow

Re: [admin] putting Push API in W3C's Github repo [Was: Re: Progress on Push API]

2014-05-01 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, 1 May 2014, at 21:38, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 4/30/14 1:19 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: On Thu, 1 May 2014, at 1:50, EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote: On 30 abr 2014 at 16:52:49, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 4/30/14 10:44 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: I'll work with Mike/Robin to create a new

Re: Should events be preferably sent to the Window or the nearest object?

2014-04-10 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, at 0:01, Arthur Barstow wrote: Perhaps it would be good then to file a bug for the Screen Orientation spec and/or to add a related note to the ED. WDYT? https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25310 -- Mounir

Re: Screen Orientation Status

2014-04-10 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014, at 9:08, Bruno Racineux wrote: On https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25088 : You cannot fire on window without also having the window.orientation property (with its own issues*). That would break existing code relying on the webkit api (expecting to read a

Re: Should events be preferably sent to the Window or the nearest object?

2014-04-07 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014, at 8:37, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Marcos Caceres wrote: On March 20, 2014 at 2:30:55 PM, Marcos Caceres (w...@marcosc.com) wrote: On March 20, 2014 at 12:58:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: Agreed. The exact target isn't very important here, and so being

Screen Orientation Status

2014-04-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I have just updated the specification WD, solving most of the outstanding issues: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html (it is hot off the press, be gentle with typos and nits) There are now only two outstanding bugs now:

Should events be preferably sent to the Window or the nearest object?

2014-03-20 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I would love to gather the opinion of public-webapps on a discussion Hixie and I had for two different APIs recently: if an array |foo| can change, should the change event be fired on its parent or the window (its grandparent)? The two cases we discussed with Hixie were navigator.languages

Re: Push API - use parameterized Promise types

2014-03-20 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, at 2:28, Michael van Ouwerkerk wrote: In WebIDL we can now use parameterized Promise types: http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-promise My suggestion is that we make some minor changes in the Push API spec to take advantage of this. It reads much better and the prose can

Re: [screen-orientation] Remove the ability to lock to multiple orientations?

2014-03-14 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 6:44, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: I am cc'ing Wonsuk and Christophe as Tizen is currently implementing (and shipping?) the API as well; it's even unprefixed. We are also supporting the current API in Crosswalk, but I am OK with the change as most of our current

Re: [screen-orientation] Remove the ability to lock to multiple orientations?

2014-03-14 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Jonas Sicking wrote: However it does mean that we need to also have a way to define that orientation should be completely unlocked. This is needed since the manifest spec allows overriding the default unlocked orientation. I.e. it should be possible to use the

Re: Screen Orientation API Spec (from phrasing confusion)

2014-03-14 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 19:07, Lars Knudsen wrote: What happened to the initiative done to take a holistic view on all orientation related specs and make them seem like they come from the same entity (Device Motion, Media Queries, Orientation Lock, ...)? Device Motion is about the device angle

Re: [screen-orientation] Remove the ability to lock to multiple orientations?

2014-03-14 Thread Mounir Lamouri
, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On March 14, 2014 at 9:58:59 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Jonas Sicking wrote: However it does mean that we need to also have a way to define that orientation should be completely

Re: [push-api] Dependency on System Messages

2014-03-13 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, at 22:45, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: One of the other changes in progress is to include service workers on the design of the API. I don't know if that replaces system messages in total but the necessary changes will be considered when a new draft is submitted. System

Re: Screen Orientation API Spec (from phrasing confusion)

2014-03-13 Thread Mounir Lamouri
://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24698 On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:27:08,Mounir Lamouri wrote: Indeed, if I remember correctly, window.orientation=0 is the natural orientation and then, the value is the angle between the current orientation and the natural one in the range ] -180 ; 180

[screen-orientation] Remove the ability to lock to multiple orientations?

2014-03-13 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I would like to change the Screen Orientation API to make the locking steps a bit simpler. Currently, the API tries to be flexible and allow locking to any combination of values like portrait, landscape, portrait-primary but also [ portrait, landscape-primary ], [ portrait-primary,

Fwd: [blink-dev] Intent to implement: Push API

2014-03-11 Thread Mounir Lamouri
FYI. For those not used to Blink's process, that doesn't mean the feature is planning to ship yet but Google is working on this. The API we are aiming for is a bit different from what the specification currently describes as mentioned in the original message. Cheers, -- Mounir - Original

PSA: new Screen Orientation WD

2014-02-17 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, Arthur pointed out that the Screen Orientation API WD was not updated since a long time. However, the ED got a few updates so we would like to refresh the WD to have a better reflection of the current state of the implementation. You can find the current specification at:

Re: Officially deprecating main-thread synchronous XHR?

2014-02-12 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, at 12:19, James Greene wrote: There are certain situations where sync XHRs are, in fact, required... unless we make other accommodations. For example, in the Clipboard API, developers are allowed to inject into the clipboard as a semi-trusted event during the event

Re: [manifest] HTTP-based solution for loading manifests

2013-12-11 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013, at 14:48, Marcos Caceres wrote: Would any potential implementer consider supporting a HTTP based solution to loading manifests? It seems quite premature to discuss a HTTP based solution to advertise a manifest. Even if it happens to be something developers ask for, we

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-09 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 10:03, Marcos Caceres wrote: From the research we’ve done, none of the proprietary solutions currently do this. I’ve added this as a feature request [1] so we can see how much interest there is. I think it is exaggerated to say that pages rely on the user seeing the

Re: inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-09 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 20:33, Yoav Weiss wrote: IMO, it might be better not to define an explicit way to inline the manifest, and let authors simply use data URIs to do that, if they see such a need. e.g. link rel=manifest href=data:application/manifest+json,{ ... } If this becomes a

Re: inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013, at 6:06, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Dec 4, 2013 6:20 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi wrote: meta name=manifest content='{ a: 1, b: foopy }' Are manifests really short enough for this kind of thing? For single-page apps I would imagine it will be quite

Re: Browser search API

2013-12-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013, at 2:08, Mitar wrote: But I agree, that requires some more changes. For example, currently it is not really possible to style how found elements are highlighted. And it is not possible for page to say to UA to retry searching because the document has modified. I believe

Re: in-page search, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-04 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013, at 10:17, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Yes. In-apge Search is something that might also be useful within an app - especially if you can find out it is happening and respond to it intelligently if the

Re: Browser search API

2013-12-04 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 6:48, Mitar wrote: And there are real use cases. For example, go to some long document in Google Docs and invoke browser search by going through menu (Edit - Find or something similar). You will see that it does not work except for the current document page. It does not

Re: [screen-orientation] screen orientation angle

2013-12-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 16:13, Jonas Sicking wrote: So I could see apps wanting to lock to that orientation (like you pointed out, we found at least one example in Firefox OS). However I don't understand the use case of locking to 90/180/270 degrees off of the normal orientation? Simply

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: My impression has been that the vast majority of apps only need a single orientation that is independent of media-query results. If that's the case, then I think the above is too complicated. I.e. if that is the common case, then we should

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 23:32, John Mellor wrote: I definitely agree with that. Though, we should allow both syntaxes (array and string). If we want a more complex system later, we could move to that. For the moment, I think we should keep it simple. It seems an even simpler option

Re: Browser search API

2013-12-02 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I am not sure that telling the webpage what the user is currently trying to search is a great idea. However, if a webpage wants its own find in page UI I guess a simple solution would be to do something similar to the Forms Validation UI: a 'findinpage' event could be fired on the document

Re: Browser search API

2013-12-02 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013, at 23:27, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 12/2/13 6:42 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: a 'findinpage' event could be fired on the document when the user initiates a find in page and the page would be able to call .preventDefault() on the event in order to show its own UI. I assume

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-11-28 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013, at 9:32, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote: On Wed Nov 27 09:20 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 23:59, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote: On Tue Nov 26 04:02 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: Over the last few weeks, a few of us folks in the Web Mob IG have been

Re: [screen-orientation] When window orientation != screen orientation...

2013-11-28 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 23:46, John Mellor wrote: How should the Screen Orientation API handle cases where the web page's window has the opposite orientation to the device's screen? Examples where this can occur include: - Split screen tablet (like Win 8 Metro) - Non-maximized window on

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-11-27 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 8:02, Marcos Caceres wrote: Over the last few weeks, a few of us folks in the Web Mob IG have been investigating the use cases and requirements for bookmarking web apps to home screen. The output of that research is this living document:

Re: [screen-orientation] screen orientation angle

2013-11-27 Thread Mounir Lamouri
If Screen Orientation angle and Device Orientation have the same top for the device, it should be easy to make an angle relative to the top of screen instead of the top of the device. I would not recommend changing Device Orientation API. -- Mounir On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 7:41, Kenneth Rohde

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-11-27 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 23:59, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote: On Tue Nov 26 04:02 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: Over the last few weeks, a few of us folks in the Web Mob IG have been investigating the use cases and requirements for bookmarking web apps to home screen. The output of that research

[screen-orientation] Locking to 'current' orientation

2013-11-26 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I got some requests from different organizations to add the ability to lock to the 'current' orientation in the Screen Orientation API. From Javascript, that would allow writing window.screen.lockOrientation('current'); instead of window.screen.lockOrientation(window.screen.orientation);

[screen-orientation] screen orientation angle

2013-11-26 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, The Screen Orientation API defines an angle relationship between portrait-primary and landscape-primary. The reason for that is that developers would know which orientation is at 90 degrees from the current orientation, which one is at 180 degrees, etc. However, by forcing the two primary

Re: [screen-orientation] Locking to 'current' orientation

2013-11-26 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 2:52, Marcos Caceres wrote: IMHO, it would be confusing to have an app that when you launch it the first time locks one way... but when you launch it the next time, locks another way. In the 300 apps we've been cataloguing for orientation [1], there is not a single

Re: [screen-orientation] screen orientation angle

2013-11-26 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 3:49, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: a) Will this be a delta from the current orientation? or relative to the default device orientation? I guess the former makes the most sense. Orientation angle compared to the native device orientation. b) What should happen if

Re: Define window.orientation

2013-11-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013, at 22:35, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen kenneth.christian...@gmail.com wrote: They are somewheat different things. The former is basically a way to get accelerometer info (useful for games etc) and the latter is

Re: Define window.orientation

2013-11-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013, at 11:17, Jonas Sicking wrote: Last I looked the property was useless because window.orientation=0 meant different things on different devices. I.e. on some devices it meant landscape mode and others it meant portrait mode. Indeed, if I remember correctly,

Re: Polished FileSystem API proposal

2013-07-18 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 15/07/13 23:26, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: OTOH one limitation I could think of in not having JS object is it'll disallow a possible future API expansion for sending a 'Directory' object to another app by postMessage. (It's another popular request we get in Chrome) Isn't a Directory object just

Re: Polished FileSystem API proposal

2013-07-15 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I am not a big fan of the Directory approach of this proposal. It puts the API between a high level, object oriented API and a low level API. It is unfortunately not really high level because you have to use the Directory for most operations and the File objects can't be subject to any

Re: Kickoff application manifest work

2013-06-26 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 24/06/13 12:24, Robin Berjon wrote: * When Mozilla made this restriction (I don't know if it's still in place) for its apps, developers complained. Having multiple sub-domains is more complex than creating a directory for a developer. Also, sometimes, it is not possible, depending on your

Re: Futures and transactions

2013-04-18 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 15/04/13 12:50, Anne van Kesteren wrote: So I guess the current solution is fine as longs as either * No JS libraries will want to implement APIs that uses locks, or * Such libraries are ok with not using the built-in Future API and instead re-implementing the Future API themselves. The

Editor change for Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs specification

2012-11-21 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, Anant stepped down as an editor of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs specification [1] but Mozilla is still interested in this specification so I will replace Anant as an editor. However, given the feedback we got on this specification [2], we are merging it with the

[screen-orient] Updated editor draft

2012-11-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, I've just pushed a new editor draft [1] with some cosmetic/editorial changes and a new feature: lockOrientation() can now be called with a sequenceDOMString to lock the screen to different orientations (for example, portrait-primary and landscape-primary). Any feedback is welcome! Note that

Re: Pre-fetch rough draft

2012-10-30 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 10/30/2012 10:22 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Hi, I mentioned this and it's somethign we are working on. Basic idea: site provides list of resources that it uses and can be cached for general improvements on the whole site. (We're seeing load-time improvement from 50% - 300% in

Web Activities: counter-proposal to Web Intents

2012-06-12 Thread Mounir Lamouri
Hi, With some people at Mozilla, we've been working on an API similar to Web Intents in some points but distant enough to be a counter-proposal. We believe that the API is now in a good enough shape to be officially sent in those mailing lists and discussed. You can have an overview of the API

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 05/31/2012 03:28 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: I'm probably missing something here, but notifications don't seem to be going through a system- / browser-wide notification panel from which the user can decide whether or not to navigate to an application. In other words, it looks like we're

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-30 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 05/29/2012 06:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: * I wonder if it is really useful to have clients requesting a specific Push service. I totally understand why a user would request to use his preferred Push service but that is part of the UA. I would tend to think we should not add that

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-29 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 05/26/2012 05:06 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: * As far as I understand it, |requestRemotePermission| and |checkRemotePermission| could be one single method which could be named something like |getPushServiceUrl|. The only difference between those two methods is the permission asking part

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-25 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 05/24/2012 09:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: Thanks to the inestimable help of the W3C staff I am now plugged into the mercurial mainline and have uploaded the first stab at the Push API http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html I incorporated Mozilla's client API ideas in

Re: App Manifest API Proposal

2012-05-14 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 05/12/2012 08:02 PM, Anant Narayanan wrote: Q. Why only one app per origin? A. We originally placed this restriction for security reasons. In Firefox (and most other browsers), the domain name is the primary security boundary - cookie jars, localStorage, XHRs are all bound to the domain.

Re: WebApps' new charter has been approved

2012-04-27 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 4/27/12 3:07 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, Yesterday the Director announced WebApps' new charter [Charter] was approved so thanks to all that helped with the chartering effort. I added all of the new specs to our [PubStatus] page and made a couple of tweaks to the group's [WorkMode]

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

2012-03-30 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 02/15/2012 10:09 AM, Vincent Scheib wrote: Mounir, I ran into the same confusion regarding how does the API expose locking?. May I suggest that you explicitly state in the abstract that the API is pending? I just updated the draft so the locking part is now part of it. Cheers, -- Mounir

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

2012-02-15 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 02/15/2012 04:29 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: In the Screen Orientation API draft, I don't see any references to locking. Is this by design? It's in the abstract: The Screen Orientation API's goal is to provide an interface for web applications to be able to read the screen orientation

Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

2012-01-30 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 01/30/2012 12:43 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: Hi there, Orientation lock is already part of the CSS Device Adaption spec as part of the viewport meta tag, though this is only going to be optional and should be ignored for normal web browsing due to the effect on usability (think

Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

2012-01-30 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 01/30/2012 03:57 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: Also, I do not think the specifications should restrain the conditions in which the screen orientation lock can happen. At least not at the It doesn't have to do that, but it could point out that UAs might want to restrict

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

2012-01-30 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 01/30/2012 02:26 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business Wednesday if you support or object to this - silence will be taken as not explicitly supporting it, and