Re: [screen-orientation] Locking to 'current' orientation

2013-12-03 Thread Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
For normal navigation mode (thus inside the browser with chrome) I would agree, but locking to other than current orientation makes sense for apps which are standalone or in combination with the Fullscreen API. Kenneth The whole point is that the API must not allow locking to a particular

Re: [screen-orientation] Locking to 'current' orientation

2013-12-03 Thread John Mellor
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: The strongest argument that I can think of is that it would be nice to keep the manifest spec and the API spec for orientations aligned. So if we think this is common enough that apps will want to use it in the manifest,

Re: File API | lastModified and Date attribute change

2013-12-03 Thread Robin Berjon
On 02/12/2013 23:26 , Arun Ranganathan wrote: Mozilla is willing to remove lastModifiedDate completely, and migrate developers to file.lastModified, which is an attribute that returns an integer (long long) representing milliseconds since the epoch. The Date API provides syntactic sugar for

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread John Mellor
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: As I understand it, the main use case for putting orientation in the manifest is to enable the UA to launch the app in the correct orientation from the get-go. It seems very hard for an implementation to do that with this

Re: IndexedDB, Blobs and partial Blobs - Large Files

2013-12-03 Thread Aymeric Vitte
I am aware of [1], and really waiting for this to be available. So you are suggesting something like {id:file_id, chunk1:chunk1, chunk2:chunk2, etc}? Related to [1] I have tried a workaround (not for fun, because I needed to test at least with two different browsers): store the chunks as

Re: [screen-orientation] screen orientation angle

2013-12-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 16:13, Jonas Sicking wrote: So I could see apps wanting to lock to that orientation (like you pointed out, we found at least one example in Firefox OS). However I don't understand the use case of locking to 90/180/270 degrees off of the normal orientation? Simply

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: My impression has been that the vast majority of apps only need a single orientation that is independent of media-query results. If that's the case, then I think the above is too complicated. I.e. if that is the common case, then we should

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread John Mellor
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: My impression has been that the vast majority of apps only need a single orientation that is independent of media-query results. If that's the case, then I think the

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 23:32, John Mellor wrote: I definitely agree with that. Though, we should allow both syntaxes (array and string). If we want a more complex system later, we could move to that. For the moment, I think we should keep it simple. It seems an even simpler option

[Bug 23973] New: [Streams API] Introduce in-band error signaling

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23973 Bug ID: 23973 Summary: [Streams API] Introduce in-band error signaling Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW

[Bug 23974] New: [Streams API] Don't inherit object URL feature

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23974 Bug ID: 23974 Summary: [Streams API] Don't inherit object URL feature Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW

[Bug 23975] New: [Streams API] Remove read as Blob support

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23975 Bug ID: 23975 Summary: [Streams API] Remove read as Blob support Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW

Last Call for High Resolution Time Level 2

2013-12-03 Thread Philippe Le Hegaret
Dear Webapps folks, The Web Performance Working Group published a new version of High Resolution Time (performance.now()) to add support for Web Workers: [[ interface WorkerPerformance { DOMHighResTimeStamp now(); }; partial interface WorkerGlobalScope { readonly attribute WorkerPerformance

[Bug 23946] Lift the ban on query parts in “blob:” URIs

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23946 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 23977] New: [Streams API] Generic object stream

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23977 Bug ID: 23977 Summary: [Streams API] Generic object stream Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity:

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread Scott Wilson
Hmm. Does this take us back to viewmodes [1]? For example you also have the ability on Windows Phone to have the live tiles view, with primary and secondary tiles, and both square and wide tiles... Also it may be necessary to consider where apps are intended not to take over the device, but as

Re: [screen-orientation] Locking to 'current' orientation

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM, John Mellor joh...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: The strongest argument that I can think of is that it would be nice to keep the manifest spec and the API spec for orientations aligned. So if we think

Re: [screen-orientation] screen orientation angle

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 16:13, Jonas Sicking wrote: So I could see apps wanting to lock to that orientation (like you pointed out, we found at least one example in Firefox OS). However I don't understand the use case of

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: What I think we should have is something like: chrome: { back: true } Yep, this is currently captured here: https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/76 Those of us working on this still need to investigate FxOS a bit

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2013-12-03 Thread Bryan McQuade
It seems that there are two distinct questions being discussed on this thread: 1. should script tags that come after link rel=import block their execution on load of the link rel=import completing? 2. should rendering of page content block on the load of link rel=import These are related, but

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2013-12-03 Thread Bryan McQuade
Second question: should *rendering* of page content block on the load of link rel=import Steve Souders wrote another nice post about this topic: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/11/26/performance-and-custom-elements/which I recommend reading (read the comments too). We should start by

Re: [manifest] orientation member

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
3On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: My impression has been that the vast majority of apps only need a single orientation that is independent of media-query results. If that's the case, then I think the

Re: RfC: LCWD of Custom Elements; deadline November 21

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
I don't know how Apple feels, but I still don't feel like we at Mozilla has had the ability to do a thorough enough review of the spec to say that it's ready for CR. I believe both Mozilla and Apple raised this concern when we went into LC. / Jonas On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Dimitri

Re: [HTML Imports]: Sync, async, -ish?

2013-12-03 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Bryan McQuade wrote: Steve Souders wrote another nice post about this topic: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/11/26/performance-and-custom-elements/which I recommend reading (read the comments too). That should be  

Re: IndexedDB, Blobs and partial Blobs - Large Files

2013-12-03 Thread Joshua Bell
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.comwrote: I am aware of [1], and really waiting for this to be available. So you are suggesting something like {id:file_id, chunk1:chunk1, chunk2:chunk2, etc}? No, because you'd still have to fetch, modify, and re-insert the

[Bug 23946] Lift the ban on query parts in “blob:” URIs

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23946 Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC|

Re: IndexedDB, Blobs and partial Blobs - Large Files

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Aymeric Vitte vitteayme...@gmail.com wrote: I am aware of [1], and really waiting for this to be available. So you are suggesting something like {id:file_id, chunk1:chunk1, chunk2:chunk2,

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:27:15 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: What I think we should have is something like: chrome: { back: true } Yep, this is currently captured here:

RE: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline December 3

2013-12-03 Thread Travis Leithead
Internal Subset: The latest Firefox, Chrome and IE all support the doctype.internalSubset property in the DOM. Their behavior diverges slightly when parsing and serializing: For HTML parsing the internalSubset is ignored as specified in HTML5. This property returns null. For XHTML parsing, IE

inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I also think that we need a way to put the manifest in-line in the main document. In part, technologies tend to be a lot easier to understand if you can create a single-file demo. In part, for small simple apps, having

Re: Sync IO APIs in Shared Workers

2013-12-03 Thread Hassen
unsubscribe On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:33:51 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi all, There has been some amount of debate about the virtue of sync IO APIs in workers. Or sync APIs in workers in general. One of the arguments made against sync APIs in workers made in [1] is that even

Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:27:15 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc (mailto:jo...@sicking.cc) wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com (mailto:w...@marcosc.com) wrote: What I

in-page search, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Yes. In-apge Search is something that might also be useful within an app - especially if you can find out it is happening and respond to it intelligently if the app hides things by default. The ability to do this is

Re: in-page search, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Yes. In-apge Search is something that might also be useful within an app - especially if you can find out it is happening and respond to it

Re: inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: Would it suffice to use the API? It’s much simpler than trying to write out JSON by hand and wouldn’t require us to create any new special script type, etc. script if(“requestBookmark” in navigator){ var

[Bug 23907] How do web apps distinguish if a keydown event causes text input?

2013-12-03 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23907 Travis Leithead [MSFT] tra...@microsoft.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Re: RfC: LCWD of Custom Elements; deadline November 21

2013-12-03 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
We share the same concern Jonas raised here. In addition, we had been postponing reviewing the Web Components specifications due to the heavy refactoring of the Shadow DOM specification announced in July: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0161.html Now we know that

Re: Cross Origin Web Components: Fixing iframes

2013-12-03 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Nov 27, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: Hi,

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Imports

2013-12-03 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Oct 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:24 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote: On 06/10/13 17:25, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: And, if the script is executed against the global/window object of the main document, can and

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Imports

2013-12-03 Thread Eric Bidelman
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Oct 7, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:24 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.ukwrote: On 06/10/13 17:25, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: And, if the script is

Re: [webcomponents] HTML Imports

2013-12-03 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Eric Bidelman ericbidel...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Scott Miles sjmi...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:24 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote: On

Re: RfC: LCWD of Custom Elements; deadline November 21

2013-12-03 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
I don't have any objections to waiting for the folks to catch up. We'll just keep it in LC until next year. :DG On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote: We share the same concern Jonas raised here. In addition, we had been postponing reviewing the Web Components

Re: inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
tl;dr - a few counter points for consideration, but I’m generally ok with adding both the declarative inline alternative and with dropping the arguments on the API in V1. For the declarative solution, we would drop using link in favor of script entirely. On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at

Re: inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Dec 3, 2013 9:25 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: We currently have both script.../script and script src=..., as well as both style.../style and style src. A big reason we have both is for author convenience. I

Re: inline declarative manifest, was Re: New manifest spec - ready for FPWD?

2013-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow it - just sayin’ its kinda crappy because it encourages bad development practices (leading to single page apps, etc.). For simple apps I don't see anything wrong with single-page. I'd