On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/22/11 8:35 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Myself and a few other chromium folks have been working on a design
for a formalized separation between View and Model in the browser,
with needs of web applications being the
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
Tests bd,be,bf for assertion ta-DwhJBIJRQN seem to have gone - have these
been removed from the test suite or been renamed?
I think those tests were redundant (or wrong), so I removed them. As
it was a while
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
Are there any tests available - even informal ones - for the Widget
Updates[1] spec?
None yet :(
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Bryan Sullivan bls...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I’m working to develop some widget URI tests. I notice there is nothing yet
linked from the pubstatus page.
I’ve attached a widget which performs one simple test: verify if the
window’s location.protocol
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with the way it
is written. Although the conformance requirements are fairly clear, the
Hi Rafael,
On Apr/22/2011 8:35 PM, ext Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Myself and a few other chromium folks have been working on a design
for a formalized separation between View and Model in the browser,
with needs of web applications being the primary motivator.
Our ideas are implemented as an
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and
I'm finding that there is a lot of redundancies and inconsistencies with
the way it is
On Apr/26/2011 7:40 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Apr/25/2011 11:53 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've been reviewing and trying to implement the widgets dig sig spec and I'm
finding that there is a lot of redundancies
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Well, you started with a relatively ambiguous characterization of a need
to eliminate redundancies and inconsistencies and now I see you think
the spec as written has resulted in willful violations of the spec and
of course those
Widget People - if you have any objections/concerns re Marcos' proposal
below, please respond by May 3 at the latest. (For some additional
context, the start of the thread is [1]).
Marcos - if no major objections/concerns are raised by this deadline,
please proceed as you propose below.
The model-based UI effort is focused on UI design and making it easier
to maintain, as well as adaptation to different contexts, and support
for accessibility. As such authors wouldn't work with HTML5 directly, as
this would be generated automatically from the models, guided by the
author's
I have no opinion whatsoever, except that the spec should specify it
one way or the other so I can close these bugs. :)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Good question. I don't have a strong opinion. It makes sense to me to
allow anything. Don't know I there
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Widget People - if you have any objections/concerns re Marcos' proposal
below, please respond by May 3 at the latest. (For some additional context,
the start of the thread is [1]).
Marcos - if no major
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 5:49 PM, timeless wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Widget People - if you have any objections/concerns re Marcos' proposal
below, please respond by May 3 at the latest. (For some additional context,
the start
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Jacob Rossi jro...@microsoft.com wrote:
I plan on adding wording to D3E to clarify that DOM event propagation could
apply to other tree-like structures (like indexedDB objects) [1].
However, I'm not a fan of defining variable behavior for a given event type.
I say we should allow the empty string. Apparently there were no
specific reason why we added such a check to our code.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Mark Pilgrim pilg...@google.com wrote:
I have no opinion whatsoever, except that the spec should specify it
one way or the other so I
OK, I'll close out our bugs on the subject and point to this conversation.
Thanks,
-Mark
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I say we should allow the empty string. Apparently there were no
specific reason why we added such a check to our code.
/ Jonas
On
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Jacob Rossi jro...@microsoft.com wrote:
I plan on adding wording to D3E to clarify that DOM event propagation could
apply to other tree-like structures (like indexedDB objects) [1].
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
The same question applies to bubbling. What is the intent of bubbling an
error? For example, if a developer tries to add an object to an objectStore
and he fails, where should the event bubble to: the transaction,
Thanks for the update Richard.
Is this spec ready for LCWD publication? If not, what remains to be done
before it is LC-ready?
Also, I would appreciate any implementation data you can share so we can
update [1]
-Thanks, AB
[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetImplementation
On
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
The same question applies to bubbling. What is the intent of bubbling an
error? For example, if a developer tries to add an object to an
I would say without affecting what resulting data is stored in the database.
This since the order the events fire in can affect the state of the javascript
environment kept by the web page.
/ Jonas
Made the change in the speclet:
There is no guarantee about the order that results from
Thank, Nathan.
I hadn't known of Knockout, but it looks pretty great. Conceptually,
its design is very similar to MDV. Notably, the two big items:
-Observable JS object properties and Arrays.
-DOM-based template production (although they work with JQuery
templates which are string-based).
The
Did you come up with a conclusion on how to handle null violations:
* Bug 9653 [1] - How to handle nullable violations is not specified.
I looked for previous threads and couldn't find anything.
It seems to me we should throw a NON_TRANSIENT_ERR when a developer uses a null
value on a
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Did you come up with a conclusion on how to handle null violations:
* Bug 9653 [1] - How to handle nullable violations is not specified.
I looked for previous threads and couldn't find anything.
It seems to me we
Jonas Sicking:
However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that
is planned to be brought back? It seems like a useful feature to
avoid having to define in prose this rather common requirement. We
should also
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that
is planned to be brought back? It seems like a useful feature to
avoid
27 matches
Mail list logo
