On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent
review, and my quick guess is that the answer is yes ;(
Really? I would have made the opposite conclusion. Changing the event
source makes a very small
06.10.2014, 09:19, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent
review, and my quick guess is that the answer is yes ;(
Really? I would have made the opposite
On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't
seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back
to WD/LCWD.
Does any implementation actually feel that it would be?
So, it appears you two recommend #2 below
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't
seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back
to WD/LCWD.
Does any implementation
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:
It
Please please do. That's a useful thing to do regularly…
02.10.2014, 13:17, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr:
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 10/2/14 7:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
Can we at least publish a new WD so people stop referring to the old
TR/?
Yes of course. (And certainly continue to work with Anne, Marcos, etc.
on a mutually agreeable way forward for Issue 75.)
And speaking of Issue 75:
On 9/25/14 9:26 AM,
Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't
seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back
to WD/LCWD.
Does any implementation actually feel that it would be?
/ Jonas
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
Can we
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
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is
what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification:
Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative
order within that task,
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:
It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes
something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested
it should
Second, I'm still very worried that people will interpret
screen.orientation.angle=0 as portrait. I don't expect to be able to
convince people here to remove the property. However I think it would
be good to at least make it clear in the spec that the .angle property
can not be used to detect
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
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
During this CfC, Jonas submitted some comments to this list starting
with the following:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JulSep/0531.html
Jonas - did Mounir's responses adequately address your comments or is
there something you propose be done before LCWD is published?
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
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It's somewhat inconsistent that we use the term natural to indicate
the most natural direction based on hardware, but we use the term
primary when indicating the most
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
Mounir and Marcos would like to publish a LCWD of The Screen Orientation
API and this is a Call for Consensus to do using the latest ED (not yet
in the LCWD template) as the basis:
https://w3c.github.io/screen-orientation/
The spec has three open Issues, all labeled Future + Enhancement and
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
Mounir and Marcos would like to publish a LCWD of The Screen Orientation API
and this is a Call for Consensus to do using the latest ED (not yet in the
LCWD template) as the basis:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Also, I can't find any normative definition of if orientation.angle
should increase or decrease if the user rotates a device 90 degrees
clockwise?
My bad, I see it now. Given how easy this is to get wrong, it might be
worth
21 matches
Mail list logo
