RE: Agenda+ DOM3 Events (was: Agenda and logistics...)

2008-06-26 Thread Travis Leithead
:55 PM To: Webapps Cc: Sunava Dutta; Travis Leithead Subject: Re: Agenda+ DOM3 Events (was: Agenda and logistics...) On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:32:20 +0200, Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the upcoming F2F, I would also like to spend an hour or two discussing DOM3 Events, if we find

Not able to attend the call today...

2008-07-23 Thread Travis Leithead
Sorry I have a family commitment at this time today and won't be able to make it.

RE: Agenda: DOM3 Events Telcon, 06 August 2008 (Today!!)

2008-08-06 Thread Travis Leithead
I also had some urgent business that has come up--please also have my regrets. -Travis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Emmons Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:13 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: RE: Agenda: DOM3 Events

[WebIDL] ES3.1 'flexible' attribute and 'delete' semantics

2008-08-12 Thread Travis Leithead
a shadowed property on the DOM, but never actual delete the underlying built-in property. I wondered if WebIDL makes any mention of the behavior of ECMAScript operators on host objects and how they should behave? - Travis Leithead - OM Program Manager - Internet Explorer

RE: [D3E] Include mouse capture functionality

2008-09-22 Thread Travis Leithead
Seems as if this startMouseCapture() and stopMouseCapture() could be implemented by re-using DOM event's capture phase by adding event handlers to the capture phase of the #document and then firing those events directly on the target node. In fact, I thought this was one of the primary

RE: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Travis Leithead
Mmm. A nice addition to the old timeout properties. I curious to know more about the use-cases and/or problems underlying the solution you proposed in #2. Would simply extending the current timers to be high-resolution help?: 2) High-resolution timers to be used to precisely drive

RE: restarting DOM 3 Events calls

2009-02-02 Thread Travis Leithead
Excellent. -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:39 AM To: WebApps WG Subject: restarting DOM 3 Events calls Hi, It would be nice to get DOM 3 Events rolling

RE: Call for Consensus - Selectors API to Candidate Rec

2009-02-26 Thread Travis Leithead
I went through the test results in IE8 just to see what the breakdown was and thought I'd pass this info along. I appreciate the thoroughness of these tests, though it bothers me a bit that we get hammered because of the various WebIDL binding issues (e.g., IE8's exception can't be mapped to

RE: [D3E] Draft minutes from 11 March 2009 telcon

2009-03-14 Thread Travis Leithead
My regrets for missing this. Thanks for sending out the notes. I will be unable to make the next meeting on the 18th as well--if any of you will be attending MIX'09, perhaps I'll see you there. -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]

[DOM3Events] Regards for teleconference of 4/1/2009

2009-04-01 Thread Travis Leithead
Carmelo and I waited for awhile, but ultimately send our regards. Hopefully we'll be able to meet up with the rest of the group next week. PS. Doug, please update the editor's draft!

RE: [DOML3Events] ACTION-267 Proposal for event iterator

2009-04-28 Thread Travis Leithead
Proposal for event iterator Following up on last year's discussion on adding support for querying DOM elements about already registered event handlers: Travis Leithead wrote on Apr 09, 2008; 08:07pm In considering a design for the event iterator (allow devs to enumerate what events have been

RE: Next steps for XHR L1 spec?

2009-05-04 Thread Travis Leithead
Anne, are you building tests for these assertions as you work out some of these details (or more specifically, are you collecting them in a public place)? (I didn't see anything here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/ ) Thanks, -Travis -Original Message- From:

[DOM3Events] Action-375 Guiding Principles Thoughts

2009-07-14 Thread Travis Leithead
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/375 As part of this action, I've taken two approaches to answer the question: what are the guiding principles for event usage? 1. Circumstances when an author would use an event 2. Principles behind when a new feature should consider

RE: Window Modes todo

2009-07-26 Thread Travis Leithead
Adding WWW-DOM to widen the audience a bit. Having the attributes not be read only and allowing their modification before the Event is dispatched seems better to me. But changing this for DOM Events in general seems like a larger issue for discussion. Note that this is how it works in IE

[WebIDL] Feedback on the August 30 Editor's draft

2009-08-31 Thread Travis Leithead
Cameron et al., I have a couple pieces of feedback on this draft. Let me start by saying that this is a wonderful spec-much needed by the working group, and much appreciated by the IE team in relation to the additional clarity it provides for interpretation of other specs. Before I launch

RE: [WebIDL] Feedback on the August 30 Editor's draft

2009-09-02 Thread Travis Leithead
relevant. The meta-point is that it's more about being able to improve the utility of extending or replacing the behavior of these properties. -Travis -Original Message- From: Shiki Okasaka [mailto:sh...@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:10 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc

[FastMutation] Updated Proposal on the DOM L3 Events Wiki

2010-01-26 Thread Travis Leithead
Based on the last round of feedback [1], I've updated the proposal for Selector-based mutation events (which I keep calling fast mutation events for some reason...). Doug, I'm sure you're hard at work on a better acronym... In this edition, I expanded the background sections and enumerated many

Bubbling/Capturing for XHR + other non-DOM objects

2010-06-22 Thread Travis Leithead
Hi webapps and DOM events folks! (Cross-posting this) This topic came up internally on the IE team, and we thought it would be noteworthy to put this question before the working groups in hopes of getting a spec clarification made. The question is: for XHR and other non-DOM related objects

[WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-03 Thread Travis Leithead
Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current {DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) [2]. When our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to configurable: false, which completely destroyed the ability to set accessors on the interface

RE: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-04 Thread Travis Leithead
this is too restrictive, especially forward-looking considering how much the DOM is changing and evolving. -Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:22 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Cameron McCormack; Sam Weinig (wei...@apple.com); public

RE: CfC: publish a new Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18

2010-10-21 Thread Travis Leithead
For IE9, we've adopted this attribute as well [msDoNotCheckDomainSecurity] It has different meanings for different types of properites (fields vs. accessors) and causes some proxies to be setup, but generally speaking it does allow requests for the property to go through without an access

RE: [Web Workers] Bug filed and general question

2011-01-22 Thread Travis Leithead
Thanks for your response Ian. I also appreciate your quick response to the bug; I believe I can resolve it now :-) -Original Message- From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:44 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: public-webapps; Adrian Bateman Subject: Re

RE: publish Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline March 7

2011-03-14 Thread Travis Leithead
Drew Wilson (atwil...@google.com) wrote: I think this alternate lifetime model is practically unimplementable in a world where workers and pages live in multiple processes. The reason is that the linkage between nodes in your graph depends on reachability of ports which can't really be

RE: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21

2011-04-20 Thread Travis Leithead
(This time before the deadline :) Microsoft has the following additional feedback for this Last Call of Web Workers. We are concerned about the privacy implications we discovered when reviewing the current web workers editor's draft in its treatment of shared workers [1]. Specifically, the

RE: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline April 21

2011-04-21 Thread Travis Leithead
-and-privacy-introducing-tracking-protection-v8.aspx -Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:55 PM To: Andrew Wilson Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; Travis Leithead; Arthur Barstow; public-webapps-requ...@w3.org; Adrian Bateman; public-webapps Subject

Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers

2011-05-31 Thread Travis Leithead
The editors' draft of the typed array spec has been updated with a strawman proposal for this zero-copy, transfer-of-ownership behavior: http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/ Feedback would be greatly appreciated. For the purposes of keeping the conversation

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

2011-06-02 Thread Travis Leithead
-of-ownership? Or a new configuration option for postMessage ( { transferOwnership: true } )? -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:02 AM To: ext Jonas Sicking; Kenneth Russell; Ian Hickson Cc: Travis Leithead; g

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

2011-06-09 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Andrew Wilson [mailto:atwil...@google.com] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:15 PM On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.ccmailto:jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.commailto:k...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

2011-06-09 Thread Travis Leithead
Honestly, there's something about this whole discussion that just doesn't feel right. I looks like we're trying to graft-in this new concept of transfer of ownership into the existing postMessage semantics (i.e., object cloning). Any way I try to make it work, it just looks like peaches

FW: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

2011-06-10 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Kenneth Russell [mailto:k...@google.com], Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:15 PM On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Honestly, there's something about this whole discussion that just doesn't feel right. I looks like we're trying

FW: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

2011-06-13 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] On Jun/8/2011 5:24 PM, ext Kenneth Russell wrote: My understanding is that we have reached a proposal which respecifies the ports argument to postMessage as an array of objects to transfer, in such a way that we: - Maintain 100% backward

RE: What changes to Web Messaging spec are proposed? [Was: Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers]

2011-06-13 Thread Travis Leithead
Bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12947 -Original Message- From: Travis Leithead Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:49 AM To: Arthur Barstow Cc: Andrew Wilson; Glenn Maynard; Jonas Sicking; Dmitry Lomov; David Levin; ben turner; public-webapps@w3.org; Ian Hickson; ext

FW: publish Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline March 7

2011-06-14 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:19 PM On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: Based on our understanding of the web worker lifetime model (Section 4.4), dedicated workers are allowed to enter into an orphaned state where they have a message port that

Re: DOM Mutation Events Replacement: When to deliver mutations

2011-09-07 Thread Travis Leithead
On 08/11/2011 03:44 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: Although everyone seems to agree that mutations should be delivered after the DOM operations which generated them complete, the question remains: When, exactly, should mutations be delivered? The four options I'm aware of are: 1)

RE: publish LC#2 of Web IDL; deadline September 16

2011-09-09 Thread Travis Leithead
I support publishing this LC#2. I will do a second review of the updated text to see if Microsoft has any further LC comments. Thanks! -Original Message- From: public-script-coord-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-script-coord- requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Friday,

RE: New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

2011-09-20 Thread Travis Leithead
Thanks! We'll see about getting these updated... From: David Levin [mailto:le...@google.com] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:33 PM To: Adrian Bateman Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org); Israel Hilerio; Travis Leithead; Brian Raymor; Kris Krueger Subject: Re: New

RE: Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18

2011-10-11 Thread Travis Leithead
Is there a comment tracking doc for this LC (e.g., lc2)? -Original Message- From: public-script-coord-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-script-coord- requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:37 AM To: public-script-coord; public-webapps Subject: Reminder:

Re: QSA, the problem with :scope, and naming

2011-11-10 Thread Travis Leithead
This has been an interesting debate, but I'm still a little confused with the outcome (if any). Will someone summarize the current position on these issues: 1. Should find() and findAll() follow style scoped rules or not and how? 2. How does the presence of :scope affect find() and findAll() 3.

RE: What type should .findAll return

2011-11-14 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Allen Wirfs-Brock [mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 6:12 PM For right now, there are two ways you could quickly go that don't conflict with ES5.1 at all: 1) you can specify that .findAll returns a plain vanilla ECMAScript Array object. 2) you can define

[Workers] Worker same-origin and usage in JS libraries...

2011-12-06 Thread Travis Leithead
A new scenario just came to my attention that I thought I might pose to the list. Given the current same-origin restrictions on new Worker(), it is problematic for Worker usage by any JS libraries on a CDN. A site using a CDN simply provides an absolute URL reference to the library, and it is

RE: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3

2012-01-27 Thread Travis Leithead
I agree to publish. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 4:10 AM To: public-webapps; public-script-coord Subject: CfC: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3 Cameron has completed addressing open Web IDL comments

DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

2012-03-08 Thread Travis Leithead
(Cross-post to www-dom for visibility, sorry for dups) Hey folks, I'm joining Jacob Rossi to help work on editing the DOM L3 Events spec; I have some time to address some of the editorial last call comments, and I hope to move through them all pretty quickly. I know there are a variety of

RE: DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

2012-03-09 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com] It [DOM3 Events] also describes basic concepts such as default actions and their effect on cancelable events, trusted events, etc., for which having a central reference is quite informative. Except the way it talks

RE: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26

2012-03-19 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:cha...@opera.com] On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:24:23 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On Monday, 19 March 2012 at 10:58, Arthur Barstow wrote: Cameron has addressed the comments from Web IDL LC#3 [1] and the bug list only

RE: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined

2012-03-31 Thread Travis Leithead
alerts true in Gecko, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. No IE on hand right now... That would be consistent with associating the image with the document that the constructor object is associated with. alert's true in IE too, FYI.

RE: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ?

2012-04-10 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Simon Pieters [mailto:sim...@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:27 AM To: Jarred Nicholls Cc: Jonas Sicking; public-weba...@w3c.org Subject: Re: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ? On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls

RE: [DOM3 Events/DOM4] re-dispatching trusted events with initEvent

2012-04-24 Thread Travis Leithead
Glenn, isTrusted is the indicator that helps the web developer distinguish between an event fired by the UA, or one fired by JavaScript (e.g., dispatchEvent). From: Glenn Maynard [mailto:gl...@zewt.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:38 PM To: o...@pettay.fi Cc: Travis Leithead; public-weba

RE: [DOM3 Events/DOM4] re-dispatching trusted events with initEvent

2012-04-24 Thread Travis Leithead
...@helsinki.fi] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:23 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: public-weba...@w3c.org; Anne van Kesteren (ann...@opera.com); Jacob Rossi Subject: Re: [DOM3 Events/DOM4] re-dispatching trusted events with initEvent On 04/24/2012 09:43 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: Based on my reading of DOM4

RE: New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

2012-05-15 Thread Travis Leithead
Thanks. It looks like IE's implementation missed this detail. I'll see about having these tests updated shortly. From: David Levin [mailto:le...@google.com] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:47 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Adrian Bateman; Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org

RE: DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

2012-05-25 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Travis Leithead Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 3:31 PM Hey folks, I'm joining Jacob Rossi to help work on editing the DOM L3 Events spec; I have some time to address some of the editorial last call comments, and I hope to move through them all pretty

RE: DOM3 Events - additional editing help to move the spec forward

2012-05-29 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Pablo Garaizar Sagarminaga [mailto:garai...@deusto.es] Hello, on Fri, 25 May 2012 16:49:25 -0700 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: This is not yet an official last call, but if you'd like to re-read the spec and provide additional

RE: www-dom vs public-webapps WAS: [DOM4] Mutation algorithm imposed order on document children

2012-06-12 Thread Travis Leithead
I wouldn't mind. I'm on both lists anyway. Schepers originally saw it as a way of scoping DOM3 Events discussions away from the noise on public-webapps. I'm not sure that's a real big concern anymore. From: o...@google.com [mailto:o...@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai Sent: Tuesday, June 12,

RE: [selectors-api] Consider backporting find() behavior to querySelector()

2012-06-18 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu [mailto:kennyl...@csail.mit.edu] (12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote: I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to not Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it does). To find out whether

RE: publish WD of Selectors API Level 2; deadline June 25

2012-06-18 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Lachlan would like to publish a new Working Draft of the Selectors API Level 2 spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so using the following Editor's Draft as the basis http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/. Positive

RE: DOMParser Errors Should Be Exceptions

2012-07-13 Thread Travis Leithead
Note, I filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17775 to make this change. From: wyc...@gmail.com [mailto:wyc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yehuda Katz Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:12 PM To: Tony Ross Cc: João Eiras; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: DOMParser Errors Should Be

RE: [gamepad] Polling access point

2012-07-26 Thread Travis Leithead
Going to a function-based design is typically preferable (especially to making an attribute non-enumerable). This is the approach taken by getUserMedia. From: scot...@google.com [mailto:scot...@google.com] On Behalf Of Scott Graham Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:02 PM To: public-webapps@w3.org

RE: [selectors-api] RfC: LCWD of Selectors API Level 1; deadline July 19

2012-08-06 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Lachlan Hunt [mailto:lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au] I'd like feedback from implementers about how best to address the issue. The options I can think of: 1. Disallow all comments within the selector for this API. Throw SyntaxError when they are used. 2. Allow comments, but define that

RE: Proposal for Cascading Attribute Sheets - like CSS, but for attributes!

2012-08-21 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalm...@gmail.com] On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: Meh. I think this

Editor's draft created of DOM Parsing and Serialization Spec

2012-08-29 Thread Travis Leithead
Folks, following up on my action item from TPAC 2011 (yeah, I know...), the DOM Parsing and Serialization Editor's Draft specification has been created! http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html A list of active bugs against the spec are being maintained against this component in

RE: Editor's draft created of DOM Parsing and Serialization Spec

2012-08-31 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] On 8/29/12 7:55 PM, ext Travis Leithead wrote: Folks, following up on my action item from TPAC 2011 (yeah, I know...), the DOM Parsing and Serialization Editor's Draft specification has been created! http://dvcs.w3.org/hg

RE: Proposal to add USB keycodes to the current DOM3 key events

2012-09-07 Thread Travis Leithead
From: gary...@google.com [mailto:gary...@google.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hi all, I've written up a brief proposal to enhance the current DOM Level 3 key events by adding USB keycodes. Here is a link to the proposal document:

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

2012-09-21 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] The spec currently says[1]: The value of the prototype property of an interface object for a non-callback interface MUST be an object called the interface prototype object. At the same time, we have specs like File API defining

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

2012-09-24 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] On 9/21/12 12:39 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: I believe that firstly, the File API spec needs to be rationalized against the URL API They're already there. File API explicitly says that if you support URL API then you get a normal interface

RE: [XHR] chunked

2012-09-27 Thread Travis Leithead
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: It hasn't been updated in a while, but we're still keen on seeing it move forward AFAIK: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file

RE: [XHR] chunked

2012-09-27 Thread Travis Leithead
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: In my observation of the current IE behavior, the Stream is for download only. XHR gets the data from the server and buffers

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

2012-09-28 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] On 9/28/12 12:38 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: It seems more important to check for the features of the spec, rather than spec support in general. I would expect if (URL.createObjectURL) for example. You have it backwards. That's checking

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

2012-09-28 Thread Travis Leithead
the above requirement. From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:24 PM To: Cameron McCormack Cc: Travis Leithead; Boris Zbarsky; public-script-co...@w3.org; public-webapps Subject: Re: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

2012-10-01 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Rick Waldron [mailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com] I wasn't specific enough in my original question, but I did note that I wasn't referring to construction exceptions, so I'm guessing by your response that you actually _just_ meant testing for constructability. I apologize for not being

Event.key complaints?

2012-10-29 Thread Travis Leithead
Hallvord, sorry I missed your IRC comment in today's meeting, related to DOM3 Events: hallvord_ event.key is still a problem child, authors trying to use it have been complaining both to me and on the mailing list Could you point me to the relevant discussions? The only issues

RE: [Clipboard API] The before* events

2012-11-01 Thread Travis Leithead
I'm looking at the beforecut, beforecopy and beforepaste events. I don't entirely understand their intent, it seems even more obscure than I expected.. I'm not sure that the use case that these events were originally designed for (which have been obscured by time), are at all relevant to site

RE: Event.key complaints?

2012-11-01 Thread Travis Leithead
and couldn't detect it, but wanted to be sure. -Original Message- From: Hallvord R. M. Steen [mailto:hallv...@opera.com] Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:37 PM To: Ojan Vafai Cc: Travis Leithead; public-weba...@w3c.org Subject: Re: Event.key complaints? Travis wrote: Hallvord, sorry I

RE: [Clipboard API] The before* events

2012-11-01 Thread Travis Leithead
request can be honored by the user agent without script getting in the way of (and possibly delaying) the action. From: o...@google.com [mailto:o...@google.com] On Behalf Of Ojan Vafai Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:38 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Hallvord R. M. Steen; WebApps WG; Ryosuke Niwa

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Travis Leithead
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in

RE: Re: Event.key complaints?

2012-11-30 Thread Travis Leithead
Awesome stuff Gary. (And I like that we won't need to change the behavior of key or char in your proposal—that part made me really nervous, since IE has shipped this stuff since 9, and I know our new Win8 app model is using it.) I'm planning in the short term to start a new DOM4 Events spec,

RE: Re: Event.key complaints?

2012-12-03 Thread Travis Leithead
...@google.com] On Behalf Of Gary Kacmarcik (?) Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:09 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Re: Event.key complaints? On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith

RE: [Workers] Worker same-origin and usage in JS libraries...

2012-12-03 Thread Travis Leithead
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Ian Hickson wrote: My plan is to make it so that cross-origin URLs start cross-origin workers. The main unresolved question is how to do this in an opt-in manner. The best idea I've come up with so far is having scripts that

RE: publish FPWD of HTML Templates; deadline January 31

2013-01-24 Thread Travis Leithead
-Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Rafael and the other Editors of the HTML Templates spec would like to publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of HTML Templates and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so, using the following ED as the

RE: HTML5 web messaging - postMessage

2013-01-28 Thread Travis Leithead
Jack, With all due respect, this feedback is a little late. The spec in question is now at candidate recommendation, and there are multiple interoperable implementation in existence. While this is not to say that the spec cannot be changed at this point, I would anticipate that many

RE: Re: Keyboard events for accessible RIAs and Games

2013-02-01 Thread Travis Leithead
I think we should give it another try by including it in our UI Events spec. I like the idea of adding the static queryKeyCap(code) API to Keyboard events. I wonder about the name though. A key capability doesn't sound right. Are we querying for a key's locale name? e.g.,

RE: exposing CANVAS or something like it to Web Workers

2013-02-07 Thread Travis Leithead
Having thought about this before, I wonder why we don’t use a producer/consumer model rather than a transfer of canvas ownership model? A completely orthogonal idea (just my rough 2c after reading Gregg’s proposal), is to have an internal frame buffer accessible via a WorkerCanvas API which

RE: exposing CANVAS or something like it to Web Workers

2013-02-08 Thread Travis Leithead
could be used to signal that new frames were ready from the producer—then the main thread would know to pop. From: Gregg Tavares [mailto:g...@google.com] Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 3:14 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Ian Hickson; Charles Pritchard; Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re

RE: [editing] Is this the right list to discuss editing?

2013-02-18 Thread Travis Leithead
Alex, work on Editing APIs was ongoing in the Community Group (http://www.w3.org/community/editing/) though their draft is just under a year old. Aryeh may have more current info... From: Alex Mogilevsky [mailto:alex...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:14 PM To:

RE: Streams and Blobs

2013-02-27 Thread Travis Leithead
Also, the Stream object lets you pipe the data from to/from Web Workers, which can be handy in certain scenarios. From: da...@google.com [mailto:da...@google.com] On Behalf Of Darin Fisher [snip] Another thing not to lose sight of is that a Stream abstraction could be useful as an optimization

RE: publish WD of Input Editor Method (IME) API; deadline March 28

2013-03-21 Thread Travis Leithead
Microsoft supports this publication. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:40 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish WD of Input Editor Method (IME) API; deadline March 28 This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to

[IME] Preparing some feedback

2013-03-29 Thread Travis Leithead
Thanks for submitting these updates to the Input Method Editor API. I've had an opportunity to review them and would like to offer some feedback for the spec. On the IE team, we have also been working on building an IME-related API, but one geared specifically toward working with the operating

RE: Reminder: Please register for Face to face by Friday

2013-04-03 Thread Travis Leithead
Chaals, The wiki says the host is eBay with an address given. Is the address still accurate? If not, will someone who knows the correct address update the wiki? http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/April2013Meeting -Original Message- From: Chaals Nevile [mailto:w...@chaals.com] Sent:

RE: Reminder: Please register for Face to face by Friday

2013-04-03 Thread Travis Leithead
Ah, good to know. Thanks. From: Chris Wilson [mailto:cwi...@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:15 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Chaals Nevile; public-webapps WG Subject: Re: Reminder: Please register for Face to face by Friday Paypal is in the same building complex with eBay (the address

RE: [webcomponents] self-documenting component.html files

2013-04-05 Thread Travis Leithead
For the attribute changes, you can use MutationObservers, unless you need to have the values updated synchronously, in which case, you can always fallback to Mutation Events or hook the relevant APIs with ES5 defineProperty overrides…? Generally, I think all the tools you need for notifications

RE: [webcomponents] self-documenting component.html files

2013-04-05 Thread Travis Leithead
, 2013 11:38 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Mike Kamermans; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [webcomponents] self-documenting component.html files On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: For the attribute changes, you can use MutationObservers, unless you

RE: [IME] Preparing some feedback

2013-04-24 Thread Travis Leithead
...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:32 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: hb...@google.com; ko...@google.com; public-webapps Subject: Re: [IME] Preparing some feedback Thanks Travis. We are eager to hear your feedback. The spec was down scoped to exclude Javascript based IME because we could

[WebIDL] Bugs - which are for 1.0 and which are for Second Edition?

2013-04-26 Thread Travis Leithead
Cameron, There's 50 some-odd bugs under the bugzilla component for WebIDL. Many of them look like simple editorial fixes that could be applied to the CR draft, but others are feature requests, or issues related to new features added to the Second Edition. Are you currently tracking which bugs

RE: publish FPWD of UI Events; deadline May 4

2013-04-29 Thread Travis Leithead
Microsoft supports this. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:31 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish FPWD of UI Events; deadline May 4 As discussed during WebApps' April 25 meeting, this is a Call for Consensus

Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon

2013-04-29 Thread Travis Leithead
I’d like to propose we start a call to begin to work toward resolving the final bugs in the spec and for other business related to getting DOM L3 Events to CR. On the call we can workout what subsequent meetings we should also arrange. Does next Tuesday (May 7th), at 11 am PST work your you?

RE: Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon

2013-05-01 Thread Travis Leithead
, May 1, 2013 3:23 AM To: Wez Cc: Gary Kačmarčík (Кошмарчик); Travis Leithead; masay...@d-toybox.com; public-webapps; www-dom Subject: Re: Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon If Masayuki-san is joining and the time is JST-friendly, I would also like to join, but feel free to ignore me

RE: [WebIDL] Bugs - which are for 1.0 and which are for Second Edition?

2013-05-06 Thread Travis Leithead
Works for me! -Original Message- From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:c...@mcc.id.au] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 12:39 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: public-webapps Subject: Re: [WebIDL] Bugs - which are for 1.0 and which are for Second Edition? Travis Leithead wrote: There's 50 some-odd bugs

RE: Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon

2013-05-07 Thread Travis Leithead
(Кошмарчик) Cc: Travis Leithead; public-webapps; www-dom Subject: Re: Proposal for a DOM L3 Events Telecon On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:07:28 +0200, Gary Kačmarčík (Кошмарчик) gary...@google.com wrote: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Masayuki Nakano masay...@d-toybox.comwrote: Hello, sorry for the big delay

WebApps DOM3 Events Wiki page

2013-05-07 Thread Travis Leithead
Hey folks, I just posted the raw minutes to the DOM 3 Events wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/DOM3Events http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Bi-weekly_meetings The page itself is a derelict from ages past, and I haven’t made much of an effort to clean it up, but it does have a new

RE: Overlap between StreamReader and FileReader

2013-05-16 Thread Travis Leithead
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com wrote: StreamReader proposed in the Streams API spec is almost the same as FileReader. By adding the maxSize argument to the readAs methods (new

RE: Overlap between StreamReader and FileReader

2013-05-16 Thread Travis Leithead
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Since we have Streams implemented to some degree, I'd love to hear suggestions to improve it relative to IO. Anne can you summarize

RE: [editing] nested contenteditable

2013-05-28 Thread Travis Leithead
6:36 AM To: public-webapps@w3.orgmailto:public-webapps@w3.org; ro...@w3.orgmailto:ro...@w3.org; Alex Mogilevsky; Travis Leithead; a...@aryeh.namemailto:a...@aryeh.name; yo...@chromium.orgmailto:yo...@chromium.org Subject: [editing] nested contenteditable Hey, is there any progress on finding

  1   2   >