https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26161
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26162
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
WebApps has been asked to review three LCWDs published by DAPWG:
* HTML Media Capture -
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-html-media-capture-20140619/
* Ambient Light Events -
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-ambient-light-20140619/
* Vibration API -
Below is an request for comments for OASIS' Advanced Message Queuing
Protocol (AMQP) WebSocket Binding (WSB) Version 1.0 Community
Specification Draft:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/amqp-bindmap/amqp-wsb/v1.0/csprd01/amqp-wsb-v1.0-csprd01.html
If you have any comments, please submit them by July
Hi all,
this email is to announce the creation of the task force working on
editing, jointly between WebApps and HTML, based on the decision made
previously[0].
The mailing list's address is public-editing...@w3.org and signing up is
at
On 06/06/2014 18:52 , Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 05/06/2014 09:02 , Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
I agree visual selection of bidirectional text is a problem
worth solving but I don't think adding a generic multi-range
selection support to the
On 06/06/2014 19:13 , Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
In order to handle them you have two basic options:
a) Let the browser handle them for you (possibly calling up some
platform functionality). This works as closely to user expectations
as a
On 07/06/2014 15:15 , Xavier Morel wrote:
I’ve been working with @contenteditable and I’ve hit a case where
one browser family (Webkit) seems to behave very differently than the
others (tested: Firefox and MSIE). The situation is nested editing
hosts: when starting a selection from the inner
On 06/06/2014 18:39 , Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:29 AM, Piotr Koszuliński
p.koszulin...@cksource.com wrote:
1. That we need any native UI related to cE at all. We don't. We
can display our own toolbars, with our own buttons, with our own
icons and implementing our own logic. So
On 17/06/2014 02:39 , Julie Parent wrote:
I certainly understand the concern that it would be impossible to
properly catch and cancel all events. But I think that is somewhat the
point - it forces browser vendors to get these parts right. All changes
to an editable dom must fire an event
On 17/06/2014 02:12 , Julie Parent wrote:
If Intention events are (temporarily) moved out of scope, I think this
leads us back to the question of what would contentEditable='minimal' do
exactly? Enable collapsed selections and default handling of cursor
movement ... anything else? If this is
Well stated. I like contentEditable=cursor.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 17/06/2014 02:12 , Julie Parent wrote:
If Intention events are (temporarily) moved out of scope, I think this
leads us back to the question of what would
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a fine idea.
-Ben Turner
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put
in v2.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the same thought pattern can be applied elsewhere in the API
design for v2.
Consider the scenario of trying to find whether a given index exists or
not (upon upgradeneeded). For now, we have to write noisy code
On Jun 22, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Julie Parent jpar...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Julie Parent jpar...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Olivier F teleclim...@gmail.com wrote:
On
I filed bugs on this on both Firefox and Chrome in spring 2013. It was
briefly fixed in Chrome, but the fix was then retracted and we never heard
any more of it. It was also reported in Firefox by someone else in 2011. [1]
I also had some contact with Webkit people working in this area who
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26181
Bug ID: 26181
Summary: Spec should specify the presentation of the array
returned by navigator.getGamepads() w.r.t holes
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25987
Bug 25987 depends on bug 25914, which changed state.
Bug 25914 Summary: No definition of parsing blob's scheme data
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25914
What|Removed |Added
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25914
Arun a...@mozilla.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this sounds like a fine idea.
-Ben Turner
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi all,
I found an
Joshua,
you're on, and I'll be happy to make suggestions once I've thought them
through... At least to some extent :)
Jonas,
There is a small performance difference between them though when
applied to indexes. Indexes could have multiple entries with the same
key (but different primaryKey),
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We
have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition that
I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Given the high degree of dependency from other specs and implementations on
this work, we really need to find a way
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
Having said that, and speaking naively here, a synchronous .exists() or
.contains() would be useful as existence checks shouldn't have to be
exclusively asynchronous as that complicates how we'd write: if this exists
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for you but
it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In short, an asynchronous .exists() as you proposed does seem redundant
But I
On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We
have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition that
I'm not sure has made it to FPWD.
Given the high degree of dependency
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for you
but it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I was suggesting .exists() can be synchronous to make it useful
I referred to it as .contains() too so sorry if that conflated them for
you but it has nothing to do with the .contains Joshua was talking about.
In
We can do synchronous tests against the schema as it is feasible for
implementations to maintain a copy of the current schema for an open connection
in memory in the same thread/process as script. (Or at least, no implementer
has complained.)
Oh cool. So I could have a 3rd party component in
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@w3.org]
On 06/06/2014 18:39 , Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:29 AM, Piotr Koszuliński
p.koszulin...@cksource.com wrote:
1. That we need any native UI related to cE at all. We don't. We can
display our own toolbars, with our own buttons, with
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcos mar...@marcosc.com wrote:
On June 23, 2014 at 4:07:09 PM, Glenn Adams (gl...@skynav.com) wrote:
What is the plan, i.e., schedule timeline, for moving WebIDL to REC? We
have now a two year old CR that appears to be stuck and a 2nd Edition
that
I'm
31 matches
Mail list logo
