Re: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

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

Re: Quick update on WebIDL "Level 1"

> 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"

o had this debate 10001 times too... but we need to do something folks, as the division between the forks and the reality of how web specs are developed is hurting everyone :( Kind regards, Marcos

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

> On 3 Jun 2016, at 2:28 AM, John Foliot <john.fol...@deque.com> wrote: > > Hi Marcos, > > While it may feel spammy to you, this is a long-standing part of the W3C > Consensus process, and generally speaking all CfCs include the following: > > "Positive res

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

Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of this mailing list. For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is objections. > On 3 Jun 2016, at 12:36 AM, Mona Rekhi wrote: > > +1 > > Mona Rekhi > SSB BART

Re: CFC

> On 25 May 2016, at 3:54 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > > Hello WP, > > At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the > Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further incubation > before continuing along the Recommendation track. > > This

[manifest] Status

(please cc me if you want a response from me. I don't subscribe to *any* mailing lists anymore.) On October 22, 2015 at 6:32:44 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote: > what,  if anything, is blocking the spec's progression; No blockers. Just waiting on implementations.  > what, if

Re: [admin] Web Platform WG is the new WebApps

On October 12, 2015 at 8:23:25 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi All, > > On October 10, the consortium formerly started the Web Platform WG > [Charter] thus terminating WebApps. > > My expectation is this change will have little to no impact on any work > started in

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

On Friday, May 8, 2015, Anders Rundgren anders.rundgren@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-05-08 14:50, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 5/8/15 8:47 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote: no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?

Re: Stability of Widget DigSig

On Friday, May 8, 2015, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: [ + Marcos and Frederick ] Hi Andrew, The group stopped working on XML Digital Signature for Widgets several years ago and there is no plan to resume work (except to process errata as required). Marcos, Frederick

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

On May 6, 2015 at 2:38:06 PM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: Marcos|Mounir, do you two have any thoughts on this? I agree with Jonas: we should delegate the check to the Permissions API. However, I don't see how I can enforce that if the Push API doesn't want to. I would

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

On September 18, 2014 at 6:53:38 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: 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

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

On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately addressed? I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot over

PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Thursday, September 11, 2014, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ro...@w3.org'); wrote: On 10/09/2014 18:48 , Marcos Caceres wrote: This is a formal objection to publication of this specification. The rationale for the objection was already sent to the wwwprocess list

Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

On September 10, 2014 at 12:43:02 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote: [ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication between WebApps and TAG. ] This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to publish a new WD of the URL spec (on

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

On Friday, September 5, 2014, Kostiainen, Anssi anssi.kostiai...@intel.com wrote: On 04 Sep 2014, at 23:18, Marcos Caceres mar...@marcosc.com javascript:; wrote: Absolutely, we should be addressing them at the API level. I guess you mean each API should address this in a way that fits

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

On September 4, 2014 at 4:14:57 PM, Florian Bösch (pya...@gmail.com) wrote: This is an issue to use, for a user. - http://codeflow.org/issues/permissions.html - http://codeflow.org/issues/permissions.jpg This sets up an unrealistic straw-man. Are there any real sites that would need to

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

-- Marcos Caceres On September 4, 2014 at 4:24:56 PM, Florian Bösch (pya...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: This sets up an unrealistic straw-man. Are there any real sites that would need to show all of the above all at the same time

Re: RfC: pre-LC version of Screen Orientation; deadline August 18

On August 14, 2014 at 3:23:23 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux (d...@w3.org) wrote: HTH, It does! thank you. I've filed a bug for each on GH.  https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/issues/ Hope to fix 'em up soon! 

Re: My requirements for the Manifest for Web Applications

Hi Mark,  On August 6, 2014 at 5:22:01 AM, Mark Taylor (mark.s...@base88.com) wrote: My main feedback/concerns is that it is currently as inherently inflexible as the cache manifest file, rendering it useless in many use cases: Specification assumes that the entire app is self contained

Re: Screen orientation API feedback

On August 5, 2014 at 6:33:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote: snip This is great feedback - thanks for this Anne! I've captured each of the issues you raised in the bug tracker on GH [1] (and cc'ed you on them). We will address them in the next few days. 

RE: pre-LC version of Screen Orientation; deadline August 18

progressing to Proposed Recommendation. If a change is required in the HTML specification then it is more likely that this would occur in HTML 5.1 [4]. Thanks Paul. Will be sure to address this before LC.  --  Marcos Caceres

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

a call for volunteers for co-editor on WebIDL.  Anyone can edit the spec. It's just a github repo. Send a PR. There is no need for a special call from the Chairs as an excuse to do work. --  Marcos Caceres

Re: WebIDL Spec Status

not working. 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 a waste of everyone's time to try to maintain multiple versions.  --  Marcos Caceres

Re: WebApp installation via the browser

pointers to what you mean, I'm happy to go and do the research for the use cases, etc.   [#161] https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/161 --  Marcos Caceres

Re: Fetch API

On May 29, 2014 at 9:02:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote: The plan is to implement and ship this fairly soon, so I figured I'd ask for review now, while we're still drafting the text: http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#fetch-api In particular I'd like feedback on the

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

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.frjavascript:; wrote: Then, it might make sense to have the manifest same origin as the web page because obviously making start_url same origin as the

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

or a bad thing that manifests don't have to be served from the same origin as the web app itself. It would indeed be great to get some more opinions about this.  [1] http://w3c.github.io/manifest/#obtaining-a-manifest --  Marcos Caceres

[manifest] URL Scope and priorities, was Re: [manifest] Update and call for review

On May 27, 2014 at 9:19:45 AM, Ben Francis (bfran...@mozilla.com) wrote: I think a particular problem with having no defined scope for apps is when you want to hyperlink from one web app to another. A hyperlink with no specified target window will always open in the browsing context

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

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 my own app store to use its manifest would be for Google to include the HTTP header: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http

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

from custom stores.  It means one or two additional clicks for users to install an app - but we assure that apps are always being installed from the source.    --  Marcos Caceres

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

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.comjavascript:; 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

[manifest] Update and call for review

/manifest-csp/ -- Marcos Caceres

Re: An error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

): [[ href=http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A//www.w3.org/TR/widgets/doc2=http%3A//dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/;differences document ]] Marcos - this should be updated or perhaps just removed. yeah, removing it is fine I think. 

Re: An error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

On April 17, 2014 at 5:46:17 AM, Wang, Peter H (peter.h.w...@intel.com) wrote: Hi all, I’ve found a small error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/. In “7.12.4 Example of Usage”: 古老瓷地图 Ancient Chinese Maps should be 古老中国地图 Ancient Chinese Maps Thank you very much.

Re: An error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

On April 17, 2014 at 12:21:06 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote: On 4/17/14 12:09 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: On April 17, 2014 at 5:46:17 AM, Wang, Peter H (peter.h.w...@intel.com) wrote: Hi all, I’ve found a small error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets

Re: Screen Orientation Status

On April 3, 2014 at 4:38:41 PM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: Test suite: None yet. No test suite coordinator at the moment. I can create the test suite.  --  Marcos Caceres

Re: [April2014Meeting] Building an Issue and Bug focused agenda

On April 2, 2014 at 6:51:06 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote: * Manifest; led by Marcos; high priority issues, bugs, etc. High-priority v1: * orientation hinting * Implementer interest  * should we freeze v1, go to LC?  V2 feature set: * url scope * service workers * what

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

On March 20, 2014 at 12:58:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. (jackalm...@gmail.com) wrote: Agreed. The exact target isn't very important here, and so being consistent with legacy event firing for the same system is probably a good idea. Agree. Let's go with consistency, even though it feels a bit

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

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 unlocked. This is needed since the manifest spec allows

Re: Browser search API

to a proposal). Give him a few more weeks. If you don’t hear back by the end of the month you can try to ping him directly.  Mitar On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Mitar wrote: Hi! After a bit of delay, I posted

Re: [push-api] Dependency on System Messages

On March 13, 2014 at 2:33:08 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote: On 3/13/14 1:52 PM, ext Mounir Lamouri wrote: System Messages are definitely abandoned, I do not think any specification should use them. Even in SysApps, we started working on something called Event Pages

Re: Browser search API

. -- Marcos Caceres

[Manifest] Study on installable web apps

. HTH, Marcos [1] https://github.com/w3c-webmob/installable-webapps/blob/gh-pages/ios_standalone/README.md -- Marcos Caceres

Re: WebKit interest in ServiceWorkers (was Re: [manifest] Utility of bookmarking to home screen, was V1 ready for wider review)

On Monday, February 17, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: BTW, I noticed there is no Bugzilla component for Service Workers so I will ask Mike Smith to create one). I think they bug tracker on GH is being used instead. It's already very active and it would be a shame to have to

Re: [manifest] Utility of bookmarking to home screen, was V1 ready for wider review

On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','w...@marcosc.com'); wrote: tl;dr: I strongly agree (and data below shows) that installable web apps without offline

Re: [manifest] orientation member

On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: Ok, makes sense. So my counter questions are: 1. Could we get away without using generic media queries and instead only

[manifest] V1 ready for wider review

will request to transition to LC in a week or so. [manifest] http://w3c.github.io/manifest/ [v2] see goals for v2, https://github.com/w3c/manifest#goals-for-v2-and-beyond [bugs] https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues -- Marcos Caceres

[manifest] name and icons, was Re: [manifest] V1 ready for wider review

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I still think that leaving out name and icons from a manifest about bookmarks is a big mistake. I just made my case here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2014Feb/0039.html I'll reply separately. Basically I

CFCs for ordinary drafts, was CFC for Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

Hi Art, I'm wondering if we can change the group's work mode to not requiring CFCs for ordinary working drafts? Unless I'm not getting something, they seem to add an unnecessary delay to getting stuff published. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres On Monday, January 27, 2014 at 3:37

Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

On Friday, January 24, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Jungkee Song wrote: To be clear: I’m concerned that the last time the spec on TR was updated was in 2012. That seems like a big failure to me, specially as when you google for the spec, the on the TR comes up first. This means that most

W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a short status and plan. It would indeed be good. However, it would also be good to have

Re: W3C XHR, was Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: I don't recall any discussions about stopping the current work, although I think it would be useful if the group's XHR Editors would provide a short status

Re: [admin] Draft of updated charter available for review

nonsense: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Maybe drop: public-web-inte...@w3.org (archive) for discussion of the Web Intents specification -- Marcos Caceres On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, Although WebApps' current charter

Re: [manifest] orientation member

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: 3On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr (mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: My impression has been that the vast majority of apps only need a

Re: [manifest] orientation member

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: 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

Re: [manifest] orientation member

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Scott Wilson wrote: Hmm. Does this take us back to viewmodes [1]? For example you also have the ability on Windows Phone to have the live tiles view, with primary and secondary tiles, and both square and wide tiles... I thought it did, but I

Re: Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

). -- Marcos Caceres

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: The Editors would appreciate if people take a look and see if you agree with the feature set. What I think we should have

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Monday, December 9, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: 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

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

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2013-12-11 13:13, Mounir Lamouri wrote: 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

[manifest] HTTP-based solution for loading manifests

the following in the case of [1]: Link: /manifest.json; rel=manifest Or the following in the case of a new header: Manifest: /manifest Please see the following for discussion: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/98 [RFC5988] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988 -- Marcos Caceres

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

Hi Rob, On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Rob Manson wrote: That's a great overview! There's 2 points I think haven't fully been addressed. 1. Section 8. Navigation Much of this work (and HTML5 in general) is about bringing the Web Platform up to being equal with native

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: 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

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

More comments inline, but I’ve started running a developer survey here about the proposed solutions: https://gist.github.com/marcoscaceres/7783977 See also: https://twitter.com/marcosc/status/408150324629630976 Some really great feedback from the dev community on twitter! Please take a look.

Re: Request for feedback: Streams API

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Thanks for the update Feras. Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and individuals should be asked to review the spec? In IRC just now, jgraham mentioned TC39, WHATWG and Domenic. Would

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

… } /script But need to talk to HTML folks about what the right thing to do here is (with regards to legacy UAs, not breaking parsing, etc.). -- Marcos Caceres

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:27:15 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc (mailto:jo...@sicking.cc) wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: What I

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

the option, if we were to support this, would be something like “searchable”. Then the UA can work out the best way to present show the search box (e.g., long press - “Search on this screen”). -- Marcos Caceres

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

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM, 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

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

tl;dr - a few counter points for consideration, but I’m generally ok with adding both the declarative inline alternative and with dropping the arguments on the API in V1. For the declarative solution, we would drop using link in favor of script entirely. On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at

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

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow it - just sayin’ its kinda crappy because it encourages bad development practices (leading to single page apps, etc.). For simple apps I don't see anything wrong with single-page. I'd

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: The Editors would appreciate if people take a look and see if you agree with the feature set. When we did outside

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 06:40:43 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: Yes, the app can detect that it's running standalone and display a back button itself. However

[manifest] orientation member

TLDR; orientation is hard. We've temporarily removed it from the spec. We have two proposals below. Orientation of an application is dependent on the media features of the display. For example an application might need to be launched in landscape on phones (in order to have sufficient

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

On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 at 15:16, Mounir Lamouri wrote: 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');

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

On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 at 15:30, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: hi, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 at 15:16, Mounir Lamouri wrote: Hi, I got some requests from different

New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

-shedding! ** Unless anyone objects, the Editors would like to request the start of a CFC towards publishing a FPWD of the manifest spec. -- Marcos Caceres

[Manifest] use cases, was Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?

On Friday, November 1, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Wonsuk Lee wrote: Hi. Marcos. I think one of big benefit with manifest format is we can use hyperlink for that. User can install a web app with manifest format, no need to visit a site. So manifest can provide more smooth way of installation

Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?

from 16:00-17:00 on Monday November 11 [1]. The one topic currently identified for that slot is the Manifest spec. Marcos - would you please summarize the overall `state` of the Manifest spec (f.ex. the status, next steps, blockers, and such)? I would also like to know if you think

Re: [coord] Is there still a need for WebApps + SysApps meeting at TPAC?

/Reference/SafariHTMLRef/Articles/MetaTags.html And: https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/installtohomescreen So, some standardized thing of the above (without the proprietary prefixes, of course). However, as the manifest specification editor Marcos unfortunately is not able

Re: [screen-orientation] Seeking status and plans

On October 27, 2013 at 12:45:26 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote: On 10/26/13 9:03 AM, ext Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote: Yes, Tizen and IE11 implements it Thanks Kenneth. Marcos - is the following what Mounir means re screen-orientation issues you raised: Yes

Re: [gamepad] Seeking status and plans

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: One reason groups publish a LCWD is to use it as a signal that broader review of the spec is desired, and in this case, perhaps we can ask Marcos to help us reach out to the developer community he mentioned in [Dev

Re: [gamepad] Seeking status and plans

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: On 10/14/2013 3:34 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: Hi All, The Gamepad API was briefly discussed at the LXJS conference. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekvaKmVfjtct=5m30s It seems at least one developer is very

Re: [gamepad] Seeking status and plans

developers to get feedback? Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres On Thursday, October 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: On 10/2/2013 12:31 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Ted, Scott, If any of the data for the Gamepad spec in [PubStatus] is not accurate, please provide

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

On Friday, October 11, 2013, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 7/31/13 10:05 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: Thanks, indeed the CR-PR transition was made with a test suite that was linked to this WebIDL reference, and not the other one

Re: Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

or for worst. We have IndexedDB as the database solution for the platform. It would be great to get help making IndexedDB more usable instead of working on Web SQL. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres

Re: Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

On Friday, September 27, 2013 at 3:07 PM, pira...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Marcos. Also, I thinks IndexedDB fits better as a Javascript database working in a pure object oriented way. I don't think WebSQL it's absolutely bad, relational databases usually are easier to work

Re: [clipboard] typo in WebIDL

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:31, Hallvord Steen wrote: So does this imply that someone (i.e. Hallvord :)) needs to move it elsewhere? Nah, it just means I should be more stringent on pushing out releases and go through the TR process (painful or not) so that the

Re: Reminder: TTWF-Shenzhen Nov 9, F2F Meeting Nov 11-12, TP Meeting Nov 13

and it's becoming a deterrent for submission. More people should be trained to have the ability to review and possibly approve tests. -- Marcos Caceres

Re: RfC: LCWD of Web Notifications; deadline October 24

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: WebApps - the Web Notification WG asked WebApps to review their September 12 LCWD of Web Notifications: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/ Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual

Re: HTML as application manifest format

for the JSON format, but at least parsing is already done for us (as it was with XML, though sadly it seems that devs prefer JSON). Thanks anyway for the suggestion and for taking time to think about the problem! Hopefully you can continue to help us with the JSON manifest. -- Marcos

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

be good to highlight them. No need. Let just go to REC and be done please ^_^ -- Marcos Caceres

Re: [screen-orientation] Comments from Marcos

FYI, this is now moved here: https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2013/07/OrientationLock.md Mounir has already addressed some of the feedback. -- Marcos Caceres On Friday, July 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 12:09, Arthur Barstow

Re: Web Widgets, Where Art Thou?

Hi Daniel, On Monday, July 29, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote: FWIW, I ran a dev poll last week: ~95% of respondents What was the sample size? Who were the developers? Where was the poll run? preferred a simple, separate HTML document specifically for their widget and use all the

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

of the proposed wordings from WebIDL? (likely 'Conforming IDL Fragments' per reading of the spec). Thanks, Sure, I can add that if you think it will be helpful. -- Marcos Caceres

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Monday, July 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: Hi, In the PR [1], the text referencing WebIDL is not using one of the three conformance clauses defined in WebIDL

Re: [widgetsapi] reference to WebIDL

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: Yes, that would be helpful (hence the report), thanks. Done. Spec now sez: Implementations that use ECMAScript to implement the APIs defined

Re: [screen-orientation] Comments from Marcos

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 12:09, Arthur Barstow wrote: FYI, Marcos provided some comments on the latest Screen Orientation API ED in https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/7. Marcos - thanks for this. No probs :) Is your expectation that followups on your review are made

Re: Web Widgets, Where Art Thou?

On Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote: To clarify, I am proposing that we make a simple app manifest entry the only requirement for widget declaration: widget: { launch_path: ... }. The issue with viewMode (https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/22), is that it

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >