On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with much of this. However it's hard to judge without a bit
>>> more meat on it. Do you have any ideas for w
There is always something like UCA:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/
which looks interesting.
Cheers,
Keean.
On 29 April 2011 20:32, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> > On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 201
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> This made me wonder about this:
>
> > When support for a feature is disabled (e.g. as an emergency measure
> > to mitigate a security problem, or to aid in development, or for
> > performance reasons), user agents must act as if they had no support
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Summary: AbstractWorker and WorkerGlobalScope should inherit
EventTarget
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
>> wrote:
>>> We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
>>> closure. At this point I would be fine with either
On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
>> We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
>> closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2
>> and agree that for now we'll just
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
> We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
> closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2
> and agree that for now we'll just do binary collation everywhere or b) the
> last form
Marcos
I'd suggest you first send an email with the top 10 substantive changes to the
list, e.g. which algorithms change from mandatory to optional or optional to
mandatory etc, which processing rules you are relaxing, etc
this would take less time for you and be much clearer to all.
thanks
We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2 and
agree that for now we'll just do binary collation everywhere or b) the last
form of the proposal sent around: extra "collation" argument (follow
On 04/29/2011 04:11 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/28/11, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 04/28/2011 04:46 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Would be good to know what are the use cases you had in mind.
I'm never sure if I'm using the term "use case" correctly =-).
Our primary motivator is the needs of web
All of this functionality can be built upon the current spec, but
constraining the spec to support this convenience precludes other uses.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Brett Zamir wrote:
> user to parse the response text, why not simply allow each event to be a
> JSON-encoded object of some
11 matches
Mail list logo
