On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
[...] I added this serialization step as optional, conditional on the browser
storing an internalSubset.
It is somewhat upsetting that in 2013 we still need to discuss why
optional features and specifications
On 12/6/13 2:04 PM, ext James Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the
boilerplate. The W3C Staff told us it must be removed before the
LC
[ s/public-webapps-testsuite/public-webapps/ Uuugh ]
On 12/7/13 10:22 AM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
[ + IanJ; Bcc public-w3process since this thread is an instance of issue-71; (see
Hi Art, all,
On 11/26/2013 08:43 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
that spec, using the following ED as the basis:
On 12/6/13 7:40 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:43 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Earlier today Travis closed the last open bug for DOM Parsing and
Serialization so this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of
that spec, using the following ED as the basis:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
Even worse is the removal of the reference to the source specification,
given that you know that this is a contentious subject in this WG.
Both Travis and I supported keeping that information in the boilerplate.
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
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
I did end up talking about the (historical) internalSubset property of the
Doctype object for serialization--since browsers will include it if they
support it. Is this what you're referring to?
Do all
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
On 11/27/13 7:17 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
requirements (e.g., of
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
WebApps has a relatively long history of giving Editors quite a bit of
artistic freedom aka edit-first-review-later policy so I don't see what
Travis has done as anything different. (BTW, this is codified in Webapps'
On 11/27/13 8:52 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
WebApps has a relatively long history of giving Editors quite a bit of
artistic freedom aka edit-first-review-later policy so I don't see what
Travis has done as
will include it if they
support it. Is this what you're referring to?
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:19 AM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization
Filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23936 to track this LC
comment :-)
-Original Message-
From: Travis Leithead
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:23 AM
To: 'Arthur Barstow'; Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: RE: CfC: publish LCWD of DOM Parsing
14 matches
Mail list logo
