Re: Art steps down - thank you for everything

So long, Art, and thanks for all the fish. --tobie On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, at 16:45, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: > Hi folks, > > as you may have noticed, Art has resigned as a co-chair of the Web > Platform group. He began chairing the Web Application Formats group about > a decade ago, became

Re: Custom Elements: is=""

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015, at 18:52, Alice Boxhall wrote: > Doc in progress at > https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/Type-Extensions.md Sent a pull request your way[1]. --tobie --- [1]: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/pull/117

Re: Custom Elements: is=""

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, at 19:41, Léonie Watson wrote: > Is there a succinct explanation of why the is= syntax is disliked? The > info on the WHATWG wiki explains where is= breaks, but doesn’t offer much > on the syntax issue [1]. Esthetics aside, the main issue it is takes the concept of inheritanc

Re: [IndexedDB] link to Editor's draft is a 404

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > > > > Arthur Barstow , 2015-02-02 08:47 -0500: > > > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54cf7fe0.6090...@gmail.com> > > > On 2/2/15 7:14 AM,

Re: [IndexedDB] link to Editor's draft is a 404

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > > Arthur Barstow , 2015-02-02 08:47 -0500: > > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54cf7fe0.6090...@gmail.com> > > On 2/2/15 7:14 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > > > >Would recommend redirecting to

[IndexedDB] link to Editor's draft is a 404

Hi, Heads-up that the link to the Editor's Draft of the IndexedDB spec is now a 404. Not sure whether that is on purpose or an accident. Would recommend redirecting to the ED of the next version of the spec. Thanks, --tobie

Re: [editing] Responsive Input Terminology

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > What is your counter-proposal? Heh. Fair enough, I guess. :) These seem related to what Java calls semantic events [JAVADOC], so I'd give that a try to see if it fits the model. If not, would "abstract events" or simply "high-level even

Re: [editing] Responsive Input Terminology

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Ben Peters wrote: > There has been a lot of debate [1][2] about the correct name for device > independent events [3] as a concept*. We have considered Intention Events, > Command Events, and Action Events among others. I believe we now have a > good name for them-

[service-workers] SW event syntax and Cache API

Hi folks, Couple of issues I've bumped into recently while looking at Service Workers more closely. 1. e.respondWith + e.waitUntil. I feel like those are strong code smells we haven't found the right design for yet. I have a suggestion for waitUntil[1]. None yet for respondWith, but plan to tinke

Re: Fetch API

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Marcos wrote: > > > enum RequestMode { "same-origin", "tainted cross-origin", "CORS", > "CORS-with-forced-preflight" }; > > I think these are badly named (even though they use the names used in HTML > and Fetch). It's going to be annoying to type these out for dev

Re: XMLHttpRequest Level 1- specification history

On Mar 29, 2014, at 21:25, David Dailey wrote: Hi all, http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#specification-history In the very beginning of the history part, we read "The XMLHttpRequest object was initially defined as part of the WHATWG

[push-api] No clear mention of privacy implication of sending data through push service

Hi, Was just skimming through the Push API spec. I'm aware that no payload is sent with push message for privacy reasons (as push service is most certainly a third party), but that isn't mentioned in the spec. I suggest adding a non-normative note that: 1. describes the reasons of this architec

Re: Testing Pointer Lock

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:50:21 +0100, Vincent Scheib (mailto:sch...@google.com)> > wrote: > > Pointer lock is tricky to automate tests for. Consider some examples: > > - Upon lock, no pointer should be visible. > That migh

Re: [screen-orient] why not provide at CSSOM API to CSS Device Adaptation instead?

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On 24/04/13 11:13, Tobie Langel wrote: > > While some of the original use cases required dynamically modifying > > orientation lock (e.g. the Game within a game experience[5]), key use cases > > simply require a d

Re: Kickoff application manifest work

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Tobie Langel (mailto:to...@w3.org)> wrote: > > It would be interesting to list the downsides of this approach to see if > > the tradeoff is worth making. > > Downsides:

Re: Kickoff application manifest work

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > It might be though that maybe we should put the boundary for > applications on the web on the origin level. It would certainly be > extremely convenient and allow for a whole bunch of simplifications. I feel the same way. It would

Re: [shadow-dom] spec markup

Done: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22254. Thanks. --tobie On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Tobie Langel (mailto:tobie.lan...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > Regardless, adding a className of "i

[shadow-dom] spec markup

Hi folks, Attempting to parse the shadow-dom spec to gather test coverage data. Turns out the markup significantly departs from other specs. Not sure if the spec is edited using a special tool or by hand. Regardless, adding a className of "idl" to WebIDL blocks would go a long way. Think that'

Re: [File Api]: How to Test ?

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Fabian Raetz wrote: > I'm searching a way to unit test file uploads but i can't find any solutions > to that problem on the web. That's work in the scope of the Browser Testing and Tools WG. Afaik, there's ongoing discussions on how to best support that, but

Re: [screen-orient] why not provide at CSSOM API to CSS Device Adaptation instead?

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: > Hi there, > > CSS Device Adaptation should hopefully be enabled on all browsers (desktop > and mobile) unlike the viewport meta tag, which cannot be enabled on desktop > browsers easily as many desktop sites actually co

[screen-orient] why not provide at CSSOM API to CSS Device Adaptation instead?

Hi, Screen orientation lock is critical to a whole set of mobile games (especially those which rely on the accelerometer to control the gameplay). It's great that it is now considered for specification and implementation. I had collected some use cases a while back[1], some of which led to use

Re: [admin] Testing and GitHub login names

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 9:55 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 04/23/2013 08:43 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > On 22/04/2013 13:12 , James Graham wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > > > > The only thing that we ask is that pull requests not be merged by > > > > > whoever ma

Re: [admin] Testing and GitHub login names

X-posting to public-infra for those that have missed the conversation going on in WebApps on the subject of test review within the web-platform-tests repository on GitHub. On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 9:55 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 04/23/2013 08:43 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 22/04/2013 13:

Re: Fixing appcache: a proposal to get us started

On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > (I take it the "fixing-appcache" mailing list has since been closed in > http://www.w3.org/community/fixing-appcache/ favour of discussion here.) Yes, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fixing-appcache/2013Feb/0005.htm

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

On Friday, March 15, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Alex Russell (mailto:slightly...@google.com)> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > > > > > Workers exist > > > explicitly to allow you to do expensive synchronou

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

On Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Tobie Langel wrote: > > Sync APIs are useful to do I/O inside of a Worker. > > > I don't understand why that's true. Workers have a message-oriented API > that's in

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > This is an entirely different conversation though. I don't know the answer to > why sync interfaces are there and expected, except that some would argue that > it makes the code easier to read/write for some devs. Since this is mirr

Re: [webcomponents] Making the shadow root an Element

On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren (mailto:ann...@annevk.nl)> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Dimitri Glazkov > (mailto:dglaz...@google.com)> wrote: > > > Still unclear. Are you saying this: if we ha

Re: DRM nonsense in HTML

On 2/12/13 5:05 PM, "Florian Bösch" wrote: >DRM does not belong into HTML, nor into any kind of W3C standard. [...] This is the wrong mailing list. You might want to look at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/lists/. --tobie

Re: Allow ... centralized dialog up front

On 2/4/13 1:35 AM, "Florian Bösch" wrote: >So how exactly do you imagine this going down when an application that >uses half a dozen such capabilities starts? Clicking trough half a dozen >allow -> allow -> allow -> allow -> allow -> allow, you really think the >user's gonna bother what the 5th o

Re: Allow ... centralized dialog up front

On 2/2/13 12:16 PM, "Florian Bösch" wrote: >Usually games (especially 3D applications) would like to get capabilities >that they can use out of the way up front so they don't have to care >about it later on. This is not an either / or problem. First, lets clarify that the granting of a permissi

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 2/1/13 4:23 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >One of things I wondering about is - after you leave your Fellow >position [BTW, that's totally wicked so congrats on that!], and Robin >has moved on to `greener pastures` and Odin has moved on to be CEO of >Opera - if/when there are problems with GH, wh

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 2/1/13 5:52 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >On 1/31/13 3:18 PM, ext Rebecca Hauck wrote: >> Since I'm not in the webapps working group, I had to first get access to >> the repository. I was told that that to get write access, I (probably) >>had >> to join the working group [1]. > >Yes, it certainl

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/31/13 9:13 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >As I said during one of the testing breakouts in Lyon, ultimately I >suspect the saying "beggars can't be choosy" will trump. However, AFAIK, >currently, only one of WebApps' thirty active specs actually has an >"outside" contribution. As such, and wit

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:24 PM, "Odin Hørthe Omdal" wrote: > Arthur Barstow wrote: >> Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process [Testing], >> please make a clear proposal regarding the submission process, approval >> process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and its ref

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

> FWIW that looks good to me. At risk of bikeshedding, I think that calling a > repo with tests for non-HTML specs "html-testsuite" is confusing and will > make the repository harder to find, especially since the people who are aware > that html is not a catch-all term are also the people most l

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/23/13 12:48 AM, "Julian Aubourg" wrote: >I love the idea of moving to github. >The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view, >could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for >people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email for a PR

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/22/13 4:45 PM, "Robin Berjon" wrote: >On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote: >> Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which >> has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly >>at >> the technology

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/22/13 2:23 PM, "Robin Berjon" wrote: >On 22/01/2013 13:27 , Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote: >> I'm not really sure if that is needed. If we can trust someone in one >> repository, why not in all? > >I'd add to that: the odds are that if someone is screwing things up, >it's better to have more eye

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/22/13 12:37 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote: >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a >> feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the >>continuous &

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/22/13 12:20 PM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote: >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> There are benefits to both approaches. I would be in favor of having a >> repository per spec (named tr_shortname-testsuite). This will make it a >> lot

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

On 1/22/13 11:53 AM, "Odin Hørthe Omdal" wrote: >Hi! > > We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the >possibility of moving the webapps tests. I was wrongly under the >impression that we had discussed this before (hey, confusion is not a >crime ;) ). We had such a discus

Re: [ambient light events LC] Feedback ( LC-2736)

On 1/17/13 11:36 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote: >On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:15 AM, wrote: >> Dear Tab Atkins Jr. , >> >> The Device APIs Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on >>the >> Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ambient Light Events published on 13 >>Dec >> 2012. Thank you

Re: Editor change for "Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs" specification

On 11/26/12 2:35 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" wrote: >On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:58:02 +0400, Mounir Lamouri >wrote: > >> 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

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

On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, "Adam Barth" wrote: >However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try >to pass off Anne's work as our own. Or better yet, provide a canvas where Anne is able to do his work as part of the WebApps WG. --tobie

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

On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a >Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the >WD template) as the basis >. > >Agreement to this propo

Re: [quota-api] Need for session storage type

On 11/5/12 6:47 PM, "Brady Eidson" wrote: > >> And/or coming up with an API to allow application developers >> to close sessions on a per origin basis and benefit from related >> security/privacy guarantees (wiping-out session storage, cookies, etc.). > >Sites can already clean up individual sess

Re: [quota-api] Need for session storage type

On 10/31/12 6:03 PM, "Eric U" wrote: >I think the bigger question is "What's a session"? >Does it end if I: > > * close the window? > * close the last window in this origin? > * close the last window in this browser profile? > * quit the browser? > - With or

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of File API; deadline October 22

On 10/17/12 3:29 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >All - this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft >of the File API spec . Note bug >17125 ([1] below) is open and Arun proposes it be postponed for v.next. >Additionally, Arun notes below b

Re: [XHR]

On 10/8/12 5:45 PM, "Glenn Maynard" wrote: >I can't reproduce this (in Chrome 22). Neither can I (Chrome Version 22.0.1229.79). --tobie

Re: [widgets] Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML Configuration (Second Edition) is a Proposed Edited Recommendation

On 9/28/12 10:18 AM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" wrote: >On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:55:37 +0400, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> On 9/27/12 9:35 PM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >> >>> W3C Advisory Committee members are asked to "Please review the >>

Re: [widgets] Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML Configuration (Second Edition) is a Proposed Edited Recommendation

On 9/27/12 9:35 PM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >W3C Advisory Committee members are asked to "Please review the >specification and indicate whether you endorse it as W3C Recommendation >or object to its advancement by completing the following questionnaire >

Re: [quota-api] API change suggestions

On 9/11/12 4:06 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" wrote: >On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:29:07 -0400, Kinuko Yasuda >wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >>> On 9/11/12 11:13 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >>> >>>&g

Re: [quota-api] API change suggestions

On 9/11/12 12:29 PM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >It's prefixed, and based on the previous (original) proposal. Which is why I didn't find it (I was expecting it to hang off of the navigator property of the window object). --tobie

Re: [quota-api] Need for session storage type

#x27; option in Temporary or in a new storage type might >be useful in various situations. > >On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > >Hi all, > >Following a recent conversation with Jonas (and contrary to what I >initially claimed here) there's value

Re: [quota-api] API change suggestions

On 9/11/12 11:13 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >I think I like this idea, but I'm also concerned with the fact that >Chromium has been shipping Quota API some time now and there're some >consumers of the old API. Wasn't aware. Does't seem to be in Chrome, even prefixed, however. >Since we've alre

[quota-api] API change suggestions

Hi, I'm very happy with the API changes we where able to make to the Quota API, but there's a method name we have left untouched and that I haven't figured out how to tackle until today: queryUsageAndQuota. The name is horrendous and is going to make developers cringe. It's also not very extensib

[quota-api] Need for session storage type

Hi all, Following a recent conversation with Jonas (and contrary to what I initially claimed here) there's value in adding a third storage type to the Quota API: Session storage. Contrary to temporary storage which might not get wiped across UA sessions, Session storage MUST get wiped when the se

Re: [XHR] Setting the User-Agent header

On 9/5/12 12:33 PM, "Robin Berjon" wrote: >On 05/09/2012 06:03 , Mark Nottingham wrote: >> That's unfortunate, because part of the intent of the UA header is to >>identify the software making the request, for debugging / tracing >>purposes. >> >> Given that lots of libraries generate XHR requests

Re: Lazy Blob

On 8/2/12 2:29 PM, "Robin Berjon" wrote: >On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:45 , Tobie Langel wrote: >> On 8/1/12 10:04 PM, "Glenn Maynard" wrote: >>> Can we please stop saying "lazy blob"? It's a confused and confusing >>> phrase. Blobs ar

Re: Lazy Blob

On 8/1/12 10:04 PM, "Glenn Maynard" wrote: >Can we please stop saying "lazy blob"? It's a confused and confusing >phrase. Blobs are "lazy" by design. Yes. "Remote blob" is more accurate and should help think about this problem in a more meaningful way. --tobie

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:14, "Ms2ger" wrote: > On 06/27/2012 05:44 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 6:44 AM, "Glenn Maynard" wrote: >>> Unrelated, screaming-caps on RFC2119 terms (eg. "MUST") is jarring >>> and unnecessary. I

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On Jun 27, 2012, at 6:44 AM, "Glenn Maynard" wrote: > Unrelated, screaming-caps on RFC2119 terms (eg. "MUST") is jarring and > unnecessary. I'd suggest dropping the em.rfc2119 style. That's what HTML, > DOM4, etc. do, and it's much more readable. How do you distinguish between 'MUST' and 'mus

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On 6/20/12 12:05 AM, "Sylvain Galineau" wrote: > >[Daniel Glazman:] >> >> >> That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It >>can >> sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a >>new >> syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from a fun

[QUOTA] Misleading example in Quota handling in storage API section

Hi, In section 5 of the Quota Management API ("Quota handling in storage API")[1], the last sentence of the first bullet point reads: "For example, Application Cache may silently discard or fail to cache data when it is hitting quota limit." This is actually incorrect, AppCache is atomic and

Re: Implied Context Parsing (DocumentFragment.innerHTML, or similar) proposal details to be sorted out

On Jun 8, 2012, at 11:03 AM, "Rafael Weinstein" wrote: > Yehuda, > > Can you help clarify here whether jQuery's behavior is intentional > (i.e. use cases drive the need for executability), or if it's a > side-effect of the implementation? I can't speak for jQuery, but in Prototype.js, this beha

Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs

On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:04 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: > * Tobie Langel wrote: >> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:46 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: >>> Only documents under http://www.w3.org/TR/ are official publications >>> as far as Working Group's

Re: [Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs

On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:46 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: > (Starting a new thread by replying to a mail and then changing the > subject and quoted text is not a good idea; just start a new mail.) Guilty as charged. Sorry, won't happen again. >> I recently stumbled upon a number of use case and req

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Quota Management API; deadline June 13

On 6/6/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >Having seen no negative responses to the "Is the Quota Management API >spec ready for FPWD?" thread [1], this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to >publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Quota Management API >using the following ED as the basis

[Process] Publishing use cases and requirements as official docs

Hi, I recently stumbled upon a number of use case and requirements docs (such as MediaStream Capture Scenarios[1] or HTML Speech XG[2]) that were published as officially looking W3C documents (for whatever that means, at least, it's not a page on a Wiki). I think that's tremendously useful, espec

Re: Push API draft uploaded

On 6/6/12 6:05 PM, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" wrote: > Here is the thread for the set of use cases I submitted for this API >during the rechartering: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0008.html. >Additional use cases are welcome, and we can capture them and derived >requireme

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/6/12 5:02 PM, "Marcos Caceres" wrote: >On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> Absolutely, or: >> >> >> >> and combine appcache and config into a single format. The AppCache >> manifest format works beautiful

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/6/12 3:35 PM, "Marcos Caceres" wrote: >On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> Mozilla's proposal seems to essentially target applications distributed >> through app stores. We'd like to see a solution that also enables >

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/6/12 10:27 AM, "Scott Wilson" wrote: >Having looked again at this, I think the easiest approach would not be to >publish WebApp Manifest as is, but simply to publish a new draft of the >Widget Interface[1] and do a search/replace on "widget" with "webapp". Republishing the same spec with on

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/6/12 2:10 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >I don't recall the group discussing the UCs and requirements the spec >addresses. Perhaps it would also be useful to step back a bit and try to >get agreement on some high level requirements before proceeding. Agreed. --tobie

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 6/6/12 8:33 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >Based on the feedbacks I've updated the draft: > >http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/quota/raw-file/tip/Overview.html >- Got rid of string enum, instead introduced navigator.persistentStorage >and navigator.temporaryStorage >- Some interface name changes (just for ID

Re: Push API draft uploaded

On 6/5/12 4:00 PM, "Mounir Lamouri" wrote: >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 ca

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/4/12 9:16 PM, "Fabrice Desre" wrote: >On 06/04/2012 10:38 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> On 6/4/12 6:41 PM, "Fabrice Desre" wrote: >> >>> Hi Tobie, >>> >>> On 06/04/2012 03:03 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: >>>> On 6/2/

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/4/12 6:41 PM, "Fabrice Desre" wrote: >Hi Tobie, > >On 06/04/2012 03:03 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> On 6/2/12 6:54 AM, "Fabrice Desré" wrote: >>> We're working on pre-loading the appcache at install time when the >>>

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On 6/2/12 6:54 AM, "Fabrice Desre" wrote: >On 06/01/2012 02:36 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:58 PM, "Marcos Caceres" > <mailto:w...@marcosc.com>> wrote: >> >>> Sounds good. AFAICT, Moz's proposal doesn't really c

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 6/4/12 11:17 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote: >On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> Finally, I feel it's slightly misleading to have an interface called >> "info" which enables changes (through `requestQuota`). Wouldn't >>

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 6/1/12 12:07 PM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: > Makes sense, ok let's keep it. Then we will have symmetric four >methods, request and query for each type. Following up on the conversation on Quota Management API and the recent changes which were agreed upon, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't also

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:58 PM, "Marcos Caceres" mailto:w...@marcosc.com>> wrote: Sounds good. AFAICT, Moz's proposal doesn't really cover packaging either ... Not in the sense of wrapping the app using zip or something. More metadata, feature control (potentially relevant to requiring certain SysA

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

--tobie On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:58 PM, "Marcos Caceres" wrote: > > > On 1 Jun 2012, at 18:18, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> On 31 May 2012, at 23:23, Adam Barth wrote: Is anyone besides Mozilla interested in implementing this specifica

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:50 PM, "Scott Wilson" wrote: > I'd be interested in implementing support for the JSON manifest format in > Apache Wookie/Apache Rave, but really want this to be properly harmonized > with the Widgets specs rather than a competing incompatible spec. My feeling exactly. --

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 6/1/12 10:34 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >If we go along the line we will have four methods on StorageInfo: > >queryPersistentUsageAndQuota >queryTemporaryUsageAndQuota >requestPersistentQuota > >We could also think of 'requestTemporaryQuota', a variant of >requestQuota, but by the nature of te

Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. & Top-posting

On 5/31/12 11:58 PM, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" wrote: > How about a practical suggestion for the (probably many) of us >that have to use Microsoft Outlook? From: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Mailing_List If you use Outlook or Outlook Express, you can use either Outlook-QuoteFix [1] or OE-QuoteFix

Re: Push API draft uploaded

On 5/30/12 11:14 AM, "Mounir Lamouri" wrote: >>> * I guess the idea of |onmessage| is that the PushService instance will >>> get an event when the backend will push a notification to the webapp. >>> However, I wonder how you do handle the situation when the application >>> is actually not being r

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 5/30/12 9:03 PM, "Eric U" wrote: >On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 5/30/12 2:05 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: >>> >>> How about "session", which is guaranteed to go away when the browser >>> exits >> >> >> Should it go away if the browser crashes (or is killed by an OOM

[IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB LC draft

Hi, Section 6 (Privacy) and 7 (Authorization) of the IndexedDB LC draft[1] feel very informative, yet they're not marked as such. Is there ground to keep them as normative content or should we explicitly mark them as non-normative, remove their usage of the RFC 2119 MAY keyword, and mark the link

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 5/30/12 6:30 PM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >Thanks for the feedback! > >On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >On 5/17/12 11:02 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: > >>For context for others, I assume they are comments for the draft

Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. & Top-posting

On 5/29/12 6:52 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote: >On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd > wrote: >> On 29/5/12 17:56 , Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>> On 2012-05-29 16:53, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Arthur Barstow >>> >

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

On 5/17/12 11:02 AM, "Kinuko Yasuda" wrote: >Thanks for the feedback! > >For context for others, I assume they are comments for the draft pushed >at: >https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/quota/Overview.html I'm super excited to see an API for this is in the works. It's been a much wanted feature by develop

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

On 4/24/12 11:04 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote: >On 4/24/12 5:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> Oh, and that's before we get into default actions implemented by >> extensions. > >And one more thing: extensions _definitely_ want to know whether events >are trusted or not. This doesn't necessitate a web-

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

On 4/24/12 10:00 PM, "Glenn Maynard" wrote: >On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Travis Leithead > wrote: > >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). > >I know what it does; I'm as

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

On 4/24/12 9:54 PM, "Travis Leithead" wrote: >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] > > >What's the point of isTrusted, any

Re: Draft report for offline apps workshop

On 4/7/12 1:42 PM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote: >I kinda' recall there was a proposal in the HTML WG to move the app cache >functionality to a separate spec. Does anyone know the status of that >proposal? I don't know what the status is, but we'd be highly supportive of such a split. --tobie

Re: publish Candidate Recommendation of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 11

On 4/4/12 5:37 PM, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" wrote: >I support the publication as a CR. +1

Re: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Workers; deadline April 11

On 4/4/12 5:37 PM, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" wrote: >I support the publication as a CR. +1

Re: Regarding app notification and wake up

I second Bryan's request. Having apps that need to monitor remote events each spawn a (shared)worker to do so could drain a phone's battery very quickly. There needs to be a system-level way to do this. --tobie On 3/12/12 11:47 PM, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" wrote: >Karl, excellent questions. > >Re

  1   2   >