On 2015-04-01 06:57, Kyle Simpson wrote:
There are features being added to the DOM/web platform, or at least under
consideration, that do not have reasonable feature tests obvious/practical in
their design. I consider this a problem, because all features which authors
(especially those of
On 2015-03-31 23:17, Felix Miata wrote:
Roger Hågensen composed on 2015-03-31 21:09 (UTC+0200):
... For Mozilla browsers, you
can go to about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled to “false�. Also,
the NoScript browser extension can make media click-to-play by default.
I hardly think a
We had it but browser cendors abandoned its proper behavior [for some
historical reason unbeknownst to me]
DOMImplementation.hasFeature (document.hasFeature):
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#ID-5CED94D7
and
Node.isSupported:
On 4/1/15 8:27 AM, James M. Greene wrote:
We had it but browser cendors abandoned its proper behavior [for some
historical reason unbeknownst to me]
The support signal (the hasFeature() implementation) was not in any way
coupled with the actual implementation.
So you would have cases in
P.S. Looking over the clipboard API, it seems like it really has the
following bits:
1) The various before* events, which would be detectable if the spec
added the
corresponding onbefore* attributes to someplace, and 2) The
copy/paste/etc events,
which could likewise be detectable with on*
P.S. If you want to get involved, here is a link to the archive of the most
recent email thread about feature detection for the Clipboard API:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015JanMar/0592.html
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:04 AM, James M. Greene
Mr. Hickson, please let me know if further details are needed, or otherwise
if change proposal will be accepted, at least partially.
The more those properties remain there, the more authors can read them and
use them incorrectly IMHO.
Yours respectfully,
Andrea
2015-03-26 18:19 GMT+01:00 Andrea
On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Joshua Cranmer pidgeo...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/30/2015 10:02 PM, Bobby Mozumder wrote:
One thing I’m interested in is to see more technical discussions around
this idea. Like, very specific issues that show a design or
concept flaw. It’s only been
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:47:26PM -0700, Seth Fowler wrote:
I think we should modify the Page Visibility spec to let UA’s take
actual visibility of iframes into account when deciding if an iframe
is hidden.
Right now, the visibility of an iframe is the same as that of the top
level browsing
On Apr 1, 2015, at 10:35 PM, David Young dyo...@pobox.com wrote:
I cannot take for granted
the good will of the web developer, and even developers with good
intentions may make a mistake or cut corners.
Trust me, you’re preaching to the choir on that!
It seems to me that the UA should
10 matches
Mail list logo
