Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi, 2012-01-09 18:12 +0200:
It doesn't matter too much to me in which group the API will be developed
(except that I'm against doing it in HTML WG).
WebApps is reasonably good place (if there won't be any IP issues.)
Starting the work in a Community Group is
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:50:34 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Single br tag is shorter than pairs of div tags when serialized.
True, but
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:50:34 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
It doesn't matter too much to me in which group the API will be developed
(except that I'm against doing it in HTML WG).
WebApps is reasonably good place (if there won't be any IP issues.)
Starting the work in a Community Group is another option to consider. A
really good option,
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:43:24 +0100, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
p has default margins.
This is why we implemented opera-defaultblock. Apps were manually
converting our output to use divs because they didn't want margins,
which is non-trivial to do and often leaves bugs in edge cases.
Satish S sat...@google.com, 2012-01-11 10:04 +:
The Community Groups [1] page says they are for anyone to socialize their
ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization.
I don't think that page adequately describes the potential value of the
Community Group option. A CG
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the info!
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Satish S sat...@google.com, 2012-01-11 10:04 +:
The Community Groups [1] page says they are for anyone to socialize their
ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future
Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org, 2012-01-11 20:36 +0900:
Satish S sat...@google.com, 2012-01-11 10:04 +:
The Community Groups [1] page says they are for anyone to socialize their
ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization.
I don't think that page adequately
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:36:28 +1100, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Satish S sat...@google.com, 2012-01-11 10:04 +:
The Community Groups [1] page says they are for anyone to socialize
their
ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization.
I don't think that page
On 1/10/12 11:25 AM, ext Glen Shires wrote:
Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like
to see at this point?
At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like if/when the spec advances to
Candidate Recommendation, we will contribute to a test suite that is
sufficient to
Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what you would like to
see at this point?
At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like if/when the spec advances to
Candidate Recommendation, we will contribute to a test suite that is
sufficient to exit the CR would be useful.
Yes we will
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
p has default margins. That alone is enough for us not to adopt p as
the default paragraph separator.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
Sure, but some apps like to send their stuff in
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15522
Summary: Add execCommand() to Element
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Would users press Esc to get out of the tab lock?
Do they need to be able to get out of it? They can't in a regular
word processor, so why should they be able to in Google Docs? If some
users need to be able to override
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15523
Summary: Define tab command
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Anne asked me to investigate how exactly Ranges are added to
Selections (bug:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15470). It turns out
browsers mostly don't interoperate. One interesting thing I found out
is that in Gecko, if no one calls
addRange/removeRange/removeAllRanges,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15470
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15524
Summary: Specify something about drag and drop behavior
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 11.01.2012 10:00 schrieb Simon Pieters:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:50:34 +0100, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:40
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
Anne asked me to investigate how exactly Ranges are added to
Selections (bug:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15470). It turns out
browsers mostly don't interoperate. One interesting thing I found out
is
On 1/11/12 11:41 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Also, while I'm at it, how about collapsing at
(document.documentElement, 0) instead of (document, 0)?
Then you have to handle the case when document.documentElement is null.
And yes, this has come up before; there are scripts out there that
remove
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Does gecko returns a Range at (document, 0) for getRange(0) in such cases?
Okay, it looks like my testing before was off. Actually, all browsers
have no range in the selection initially. But I was testing in Live
DOM
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
That sounds like a great idea.
. . .
I'm not sure if we should add just editoptions though given we might need
to add more elaborative options in the future. It might make more sense to
add a new attribute per option as
On 1/11/2012 8:15 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
Would users press Esc to get out of the tab lock?
Do they need to be able to get out of it? They can't in a regular
word processor, so why should they be able to in Google Docs?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
We've been looking at implementing FileWriter and had a couple of questions.
First of all, what happens if multiple pages create a FileWriter for
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be impossible to implement
perfectly, but previous discussions indicated that Chrome, at least, wanted
File objects loaded from
On 1/11/2012 12:27 PM, Eric U wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be impossible to implement
perfectly, but previous discussions indicated that Chrome, at
(Pardon the top-quoting and poor editing; working off a phone today.)
This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be impossible to implement
perfectly, but previous discussions indicated that Chrome, at least, wanted
File objects loaded from input elements to only represent access for the
file
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
I thought this issue was theoretical when I filed it, but it appears to be
the reason behind the difference in results for IE10 vs. Chrome 17 when
running this test:
On 1/11/2012 9:00 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This isn't properly specced anywhere and may be impossible to
implement perfectly, but previous discussions indicated that Chrome,
at least, wanted File objects loaded from input elements to only
represent access for the file as it is when the user
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
That sounds workable. Presumably it's only available on the editing host (as
supposed to any element or any element with contenteditable content
attribute).
Right.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Far as I can tell, File is live, and it's supposed to be live from input
type=file.
FWIW, I (and I believe others at Mozilla) consider the fact that File
objects are live in Gecko a bug. Fixing this is kind of
Glenn,
Sorry about letting this one get by unanswered -- I was OOTO at the time you
sent it.
Questions and thoughts while reading
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#enctype:
is this spec actually
requiring that every registered encoding be supported?
What's required is that UAs
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
We've been looking at implementing FileWriter and had a couple of questions.
On 1/11/2012 12:37 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Far as I can tell, File is live, and it's supposed to be live from
input type=file.
FWIW, I (and I believe others at Mozilla) consider the fact
Currently, we can asynchronously use BlobBuilder with FileReader to get
an array buffer from a string.
We can of course, use code to convert String.fromCharCode into a
Uint8Array, but it's ugly.
The StringEncoding proposal seems a bit much for most web use:
On 1/11/2012 2:49 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Currently, we can asynchronously use BlobBuilder with FileReader
to get an array buffer from a string.
We can of course, use code to
On 1/11/2012 2:49 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Currently, we can asynchronously use BlobBuilder with FileReader
to get an array buffer from a string.
We can of course, use code to
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Currently, we can asynchronously use BlobBuilder with FileReader to get an
array buffer from a string.
We can of course, use code to convert String.fromCharCode into a
Uint8Array, but it's ugly.
The StringEncoding
We updated Section 3.1.3 with examples to capture the behavior you are seeing
in IE. Based on this section, if the attribute doesn't exists and there is an
autogen is set to true the attribute is added to the structure and can be used
to access the generated value. The use case for this is to
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct behavior in all cases. Adding String conversions
directly to the typed array spec will introduce dependencies that are
strongly undesirable, and make it much harder to implement the core
spec. Hopefully Josh can
On 1/11/2012 3:12 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct behavior in all cases. Adding String conversions
directly to the typed array spec will introduce dependencies that are
strongly undesirable, and make it much harder to
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
We updated Section 3.1.3 with examples to capture the behavior you are
seeing in IE.
Ah, I missed this, looking for normative text. :)
Based on this section, if the attribute doesn’t exists and there is an
autogen
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
provides correct behavior in all cases. Adding String conversions
directly to the typed array spec will introduce dependencies that are
strongly undesirable,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
That sounds like a great idea.
. . .
I'm not sure if we should add just editoptions though given we might
need
to add more elaborative options
On 1/11/12 6:03 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Is there any instance in practice where DOMString as exposed to the
scripting environment is not implemented as a unicode string?
I don't know what you mean by that.
The point is, it's trivial to construct JS strings that contain
arbitrary
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
wrote:
Historically, one of my biggest frustrations with contentEditable is that
you have to take it all or none. The lack of configurability is
Great! I will work with Eliot to unify the language and update the spec.
Israel
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:45 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Israel Hilerio
isra...@microsoft.commailto:isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
We updated Section 3.1.3 with examples to capture
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
Okay, so what API should we use? I'd really prefer this be
per-editing host. In which case, how about we make it a content
attribute on the editing host?
That sounds like a great idea.
It can be a DOMSettableTokenList.
I thought this issue was theoretical when I filed it, but it appears to be
the reason behind the difference in results for IE10 vs. Chrome 17 when
running this test:
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/indexeddb/indexeddb_harness.htm?url=idbobjectstore_add8.htm
If I'm reading the test
You may want to coordinate with Anne regarding charset support requirements
and his in-progress encodings spec.
On Jan 11, 2012 1:58 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com
wrote:
Glenn,
Sorry about letting this one get by unanswered -- I was OOTO at the time
you sent it.
Questions
On 1/11/2012 4:22 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/11/12 6:03 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Is there any instance in practice where DOMString as exposed to the
scripting environment is not implemented as a unicode string?
I don't know what you mean by that.
The point is, it's trivial to
On 1/11/2012 7:44 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 1/11/2012 4:22 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/11/12 6:03 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Web Storage, also, only works with unicode.
I'm not familiar with the relevant part of Web Storage. Can you cite
the relevant part please?
The character
53 matches
Mail list logo
