On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
[snip]
>load-settings=""A JSON-encoded dictionary to pass to the Request
>constructor.
>
>
I'm not a big fan of JSON attributes for this purpose, for a couple of
reasons:
* They're likely to add implementation com
On 9/2/14, 4:34 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
* They're likely to add implementation complexity, since these instructions
must be read by the preloader, which at least for Blink & Gecko is on the
parser thread, and cannot "do" JS AFAIK.
Fwiw, in Gecko it could, but it would add some overhead to that th
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/2/14, 4:34 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
>> * They're likely to add implementation complexity, since these
>> instructions
>> must be read by the preloader, which at least for Blink & Gecko is on the
>> parser thread, and cannot "do" JS AFAIK.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >load-settings=""A JSON-encoded dictionary to pass to the Request
> >constructor.
>
> I'm not a big fan of JSON attributes for this purpose
Nobody is, as far
Over in [1] Steve proposes moving the UA requirements for accessibility mapping
out of W3C HTML. The corresponding section in WHATWG HTML is [2].
Recently I tried to do implementer-ey things [3] but found the delineation
between authoring and UA requirements in that section very confusing. So I
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Domenic Denicola wrote:
>
> What do you think? I could very well be missing something; this world of
> accessibility specs is pretty new to me...
I think it would make a lot of sense to move all the ARIA-related
requirements (UA and author) to a separate spec. I think the au
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch]
> I think the author and UA requirements are tightly related, however (e.g. the
> ARIA spec term "strong semantics" implies both), so I don't think it makes
> sense to move one and not the other.
The problem is, there are multiple sources of truth for t
