[Bug 16206] Editing spec should clarify normative and non-normative sections

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16206 Aryeh Gregor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 16207] Editing states such as style with css flag should be reset when the document is replaced

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16207 Aryeh Gregor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

The approach you described makes sense to us. Thanks for clarifying. Israel On Saturday, March 03, 2012 5:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > > We would like some clarification on this scenario.  When you say that > > FF will result on 1 index en

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

I was originally referring to the second scenario. However, I agree with you that we shouldn't support this scenario. I just wanted to confirm this. Thanks, Israel On Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > > There seems

CfC: LCWD of Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS); deadline March 9

All - WebAppSec has agreed to publish a LCWD of CORS. Since this spec is a joint deliverable with WebApps, we are now having a short CfC to publish this LC. If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by March 9 at the latest. Positive respons

Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

Feras - this seems kinda' late, especially since the two-week pre-LC comment period for File API ended Feb 24. Is this a feature that can be postponed to v.next? On 3/2/12 7:54 PM, ext Feras Moussa wrote: At TPAC we discussed the ability to deterministically close blobs with a few others.

Re: FileReader abort, again

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > Eric, > >> >> > So we could: >> >> > 1. Say not to fire a loadend if onloadend or onabort >> >> Do you mean "if onload, onerror, or onabort..."? > > > No, actually.  I'm looking for the right sequence of steps that results in > abort's lo

[webcomponents] Progress Update

Hello, public-webapps! There's a lot work happening in the Web Components land, and for those not following closely, here is a summary. I hope to start sending this out regularly. As already mentioned, there's https://plus.google.com/b/103330502635338602217/ where I post more granular updates. Ot

RE: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

The feedback is implementation feedback that we have refined in the past few weeks as we've updated our implementation. We're happy with it to be treated as a LC comment, but we'd also give this feedback in CR too since in recent weeks we've found it to be a problem in apps which make extensive

Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Feras Moussa wrote: > To address this issue, we propose that a close method be added to the Blob > > > interface. > > When called, the close method should release the underlying resource of > the > > Blob, and future operations on the Blob will return

Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

On 3/5/2012 3:59 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Feras Moussa > wrote: To address this issue, we propose that a close method be added to the Blob interface. When called, the close method should release the underlying res

Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > Do you see old behavior working something like the following? > > var blob = new Blob("my new big blob"); > var keepBlob = blob.slice(); > destination.postMessage(blob, '*', [blob]); // is try/catch needed here? > blob = keepBlob; // ke

[Bug 16233] New: Wrong description for lowerBound() and upperBound() methods

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16233 Summary: Wrong description for lowerBound() and upperBound() methods Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

Awesome, I've updated the spec to hopefully be clear on this. / Jonas On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > I was originally referring to the second scenario.  However, I agree with you > that we shouldn't support this scenario.  I just wanted to confirm this. > Thanks, > > I

Transferable and structured clones, was: Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

On 3/5/2012 5:56 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Charles Pritchard > wrote: Do you see old behavior working something like the following? var blob = new Blob("my new big blob"); var keepBlob = blob.slice(); destination.postMessage(bl

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:44:57 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote: Awesome, I've updated the spec to hopefully be clear on this. I've been following along and silently +1'ing the outcomes of the different emails, just without the added email noise which wasn't really required from my side as I had n