On 9/5/11 10:49 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Le 6 sept. 2011 à 00:51, Glenn Maynard a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net
mailto:p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page
(e.g. flash advertisement
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Some members of the group consider the D3E spec as the highest
priority of our DOM-related specs and they have put considerable
resources into that spec. Doug and
On 2011-09-06 01:02, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
the problem is not the being dated, but how they are published. As far
as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11966
Anne ann...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:50:15 +0200, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Pretty much everything in this spec can be abused to cause nuisance.
Personally, I'm less than thrilled to see an API giving sites more
ability to mangle what I copy.
With greater powers comes, as they say, greater
On 9/5/11 3:34 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
We should make these kinds of
decisions *solely* on technical grounds.
Well surely making decisions on technical grounds is important. However,
it seems a bit simplistic to consider it the only factor. (I seem to
recall some previous decisions
A new LCWD of Web Storage was published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-webstorage-20110901/
Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by September 27.
A new LCWD of Web Workers was published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-workers-20110901/
Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org by September 27.
[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20110906
On 8/24/11 10:09 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi,
I would like to republish the Widget URI scheme spec as a Working Draft.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widget-uris/
Please consider this a 1 Week CFC - if you object, please let the group know
Hi Marcos
Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions on the
way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
A major implication relates to IPR licensing obligations, which serve to
protect implementers. These obligations are incurred relative to steps in
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Marcos
Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions on the
way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
Yes
A major implication relates to IPR licensing
* Julian Reschke wrote:
I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
the problem is not the being dated, but how they are published. As far
as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of
things, where Internet Drafts actually come with an
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I
will proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM Core in TR/.
The name DOM Core will be used for
On 9/6/11 9:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I
will proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM Core
On 9/5/11 2:38 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barthw...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne
There are various specifications that include terminology warnings as
part of their reference to DOMCore.
Can we reduce the cost of including DOMCore references in basic APIs, by
adding some kind of supporting text to the DOMCORE specification's
extensibility section?
Example:
On 9/5/11 12:11 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love
cling the dated specs and then pretend they
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:47:45 +0200, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org
wrote:
On 9/4/11 9:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I do not think that is appropriate given that unlike all our other
specifications it does not use Web IDL
DOM3 Events does provide Web IDL definitions for the interfaces
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They
pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off incorporating
git. It's quite easy.
We have them.
dev.w3.org is the older CSS repository
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions
on the way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
Yes (or eliminate the TR/ space entirely and keep the specs elsewhere).
A major implication relates
On 9/6/11 12:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
Lets get a public version repository on the official w3c website. They
pulled off incorporating bugzilla, surely they can pull off incorporating
git. It's quite easy.
Why do you need to create an element? Just call execCommand('copy') and
setData('text/html', 'blah') in your copy handler.
Daniel
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 03:57, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:47:28 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 05
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Dominic Cooney wrote:
I think the XBL approach is far superior here -- have authors use
existing elements, and use XBL to augment them. For example, if you
want the user to select a country from a map,
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13373
Travis Leithead [MSFT] tra...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Maybe execCommand('copy') isn't enabled outside editable region in some UAs?
- Ryosuke
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Cheng dch...@chromium.org wrote:
Why do you need to create an element? Just call execCommand('copy') and
setData('text/html', 'blah') in your copy handler.
Daniel
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.comwrote:
With greater powers comes, as they say, greater responsibility. If you
personally don't like the possibilities for nuisance this API enables, you
have multiple options - use a browser that doesn't support these
On 7/09/11 7:20 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011, Dominic Cooney wrote:
I think the XBL approach is far superior here -- have authors use
existing elements, and use XBL to augment them. For example, if you
want the user
27 matches
Mail list logo
