[Pointer Lock] Comments
1. w3c is en-us
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#abstract
modelling -> modeling
2. Xlib
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#h3_why-bundle-all-functionality-hiding-cursor-providing-mouse-deltas-instead-of-using-css-to-hide-the-cursor-always-providing-delta-values-and-offering-an-api-to-restrict-the-cursor-movement-to-a-portion-of-the-web-page
> Direct APIs do not exist on all platforms (Win, Mac, Linux) to bound the
cursor to a specific rectangle, and prototypes have not yet been developed
to demonstrate building that behavior by e.g. invisible windows with xlib
or manual cursor movement on Mac.
"Xlib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlib
Also note that "Mac" is not a proper term, it could be "Mac OS (X)",
"Macintosh ..." or "macs".
3. Mouse capture
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#introduction
> Pointer Lock is related to Mouse Capture [MDN-SETCAPTURE].
should https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14600 be noted?
MS should probably be referenced:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/ms536742%28v=vs.85%29.aspx since
it's their fault...
4. a11y/i18n
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#dfn-engagement-gesture
> An event generated by the user agent as a result of user interaction
intended to interact with the page. e.g. click, but not mousemove.
> Engagement gestures are any events included in the definition of being
allowed to show a popup with the addition of keypress and keyup.
"shift", or "control+shift" and similar things are often used to trigger an
assistive technology, or an IME / language switch.
https://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/access_stickykeys_settings.mspx?mfr=true
> turn StickyKeys on or off by by pressing the SHIFT key five times
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/langbar_keystroke_shortcuts.mspx?mfr=true
> Switch between languages or keyboard layouts CTRL+SHIFT or left ALT+SHIFT
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/97738
> When you press the APOSTROPHE (') key, QUOTATION MARK (") key, ACCENT
GRAVE (`) key, TILDE (~) key, ACCENT CIRCUMFLEX key, or CARET (^) key,
nothing appears on the screen until you press the a second key. If you
press one of the letters designated as eligible to receive an accent mark,
the accented version of the letter appears. If you press an ineligible key,
two separate characters appear. In other words, the US-International
keyboard layout dynamic-link library (DLL) automatically accents letters
that customarily receive an accent but does not automatically accent
letters that do not customarily receive an accent.
While it's nice to allow for "keys" to trigger a lock, "keys" that may
eventually be handled by something outside the UA should probably not be
eligible for this.
5. must
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#pointerlockchange-and-pointerlockerror-events
> Two events are used to communicate pointer lock state change or an error
in changing state. They are named pointerlockchange and pointerlockerror.
If pointer lock is entered or exited for any reason a pointerlockchange
event must be sent.
If I press ctrl-w/cmd-w (close window/tab), is the UA required to send
these events?
If an iframe has pointerlock, and its parent removes the iframe from the
dom, is the UA required to send these events?
If an iframe has pointerlock, and its parent changes the iframe's document
url to another page, is the UA required to send these events?
6. and
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#widl-Element-requestPointerLock-void
> (for example: mousemove, mousedown, mouseup, click, wheel)
> (for example: mouseover, mouseout, drag, drop).
Please use "and" -- you do elsewhere:
> clientX, clientY, screenX, and screenY
7. movement/focus
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#widl-Element-requestPointerLock-void
> Movement and button presses of the mouse must not cause the window to
lose focus.
Suppose I'm using Windows w/ a standard 104 key keyboard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_keyboard#mediaviewer/File:Qwerty.svg
If I press a system key (the Windows key), or a system key equivalent
stroke (ctrl+esc), I expect the application to lose focus.
http://developer.android.com/design/media/whats_new_nav_bar.png
If I press the home key on an Android device, I expect the window to lose
focus.
If a user is on a system where there is no hardware home button, but there
is a gesture which enables interacting with the system, the UA shouldn't be
out of compliance.
see Fast Quick Settings Access --
http://blogs.blackberry.com/2014/05/planned-new-features/
8. comma comma
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/ea789b4e5b82/index.html#attributes
> onpointerlockchange of type EventHandler, , nullabl
Re: CfC: Move URL spec to 2014 Process (and publish)
03.12.2014, 02:41, "cha...@yandex-team.ru" : > Hello all, > > this is a call for consensus on the proposal > > Webapps will publish future drafts of the URL specification under the 2014 > Process Document http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/ > > Silence will be taken as assent but positive response to this email is > preferred, and will be accepted before midnight Hawaii time on Wednesday > December 10. Yandex supports the proposal. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: Publishing working draft of URL spec
On 12/2/14 7:01 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] There is no need for a CfC, per our Working Mode documents, so this is announcement that we intend to publish a new Public Working Draft of the URL spec, whose technical content will be based on what is found at https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ and https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ Which of these two? They are quite different. https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ The only content differences are a matter of propagation delay. The content at https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ isn't ready yet. Once it is ready, I plan to sync all documents. - Sam Ruby
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
You don't need permission to publish a revised working draft - the workmode is "do it and see if anyone screams". So I announced we would. Now we just have to put together something that passes pubrules, or figure out what to do if there are issues. Tomorrow I am taking a day off (hence writing this after bed time) to do urgent stuff for my employer, and then I am flying to Australia where I spend Monday-Wednesday in all-day face to face before flying to Moscow. So I won't really be around until the CfC for the new process is announced. I can make a request for publication if you have a draft that you think meets pubrules. If you want me to actually work on such a draft, I can take the content off the tag github and do so - at best it will happen on the weekend, more likely the next weekend. If there are *substantive* differences between the whatwg and "other" version, which one do you want to fall back to? I prefer the "other" one because it looks more complete to me, but frankly I don't care whether you choose one, the other, or to make spot decisions - this is a Working Draft. But I will have to reply to Domenic's question. cheers 02.12.2014, 18:28, "Sam Ruby" : > On 12/02/2014 09:23 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: >> TL;DR: The administrative hold-ups are now all my fault, so I'm sorry if >> they persist, and I will start working to remove them... > > Thanks in advance for helping clear administrative obstacles! >> (other stuff later) >> >> 02.12.2014, 15:57, "Sam Ruby" : >>> What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? >> It has been that the chairs have been pretty busy, and we dropped the ball >> between us. More recently, we sorted that out so the hold up is now me. > > For discussion purposes: > > https://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html >>> Can I ask that you respond to the following email? >> Yes. That's a very fair request. I may be able to do so tonight… >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html >>> >>> Let me know what I need to do. Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). >>> Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating >>> won't be an option any more. >> Works for me. I'll start a Call for Consensus - but I imagine it will be a >> formality. >> >> Cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> -- >> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex >> cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com > > - Sam Ruby -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
RE: Publishing working draft of URL spec
From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] > There is no need for a CfC, per our Working Mode documents, so this is > announcement that we intend to publish a new Public Working Draft of the URL > spec, whose technical content will be based on what is found at > https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ and > https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ Which of these two? They are quite different.
PSA: Publishing working draft of URL spec
Hi, (chair hat on) this is an answer to the request in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html to publish a new Working Draft of the URL spec. There is no need for a CfC, per our Working Mode documents, so this is announcement that we intend to publish a new Public Working Draft of the URL spec, whose technical content will be based on what is found at https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ and https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ If the document doesn't meet "pubrules", that will cause a delay as Sam and I deal with it. There is an open CfC to move the document to the 2014 Process, but it doesn't really matter whether this or the next Public Working Draft is published under that process so it won't hold up a Public Working Draft if we can get the pubrules etc sorted in time. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
CfC: Move URL spec to 2014 Process (and publish)
Hello all, this is a call for consensus on the proposal Webapps will publish future drafts of the URL specification under the 2014 Process Document http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/ Silence will be taken as assent but positive response to this email is preferred, and will be accepted before midnight Hawaii time on Wednesday December 10. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
03.12.2014, 00:46, "Sam Ruby" : > On 12/02/2014 04:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> [offlist] > > Oopsie. Note to self: double check cc list before sending emails. :) > In any case, the suggestion for pull requests applies to everyone. > >> I notice that you are on GitHub. One thing I encourage you to do is to >> directly edit: >> >> https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/workmode.md >> >> Expand the proposal, fix mistakes, correct typos -- everything is fair >> game. >> >> This will result in pull requests, but pretty much anything that doesn't >> unnecessarily cause somebody to come unglued I'll take. Sure. But I find markdown almost as painful as PDF to work with (I prefer HTML, but if push comes to shove probably prefer a Word document over markdown), and I am not sure what will cause someone to come unglued. I prefer to have some sense that we are on common ground before providing a pull request. (I'm also not a one-eyed fan of working with github). Plus I really seriously appreciate having the history of W3C work available in W3C archives and seriously dislike the approach of scattering it to the four winds, so putting the rationale there first is a simple matter of coherence. >> The same thing is true for the working draft: >> >> https://github.com/w3ctag/url/tree/develop >> >> Change the copyright, status, metadata at the top of url.bs. Heck, if >> you feel so inclined, change the spec itself. Yeah, I am much happier to make proposals for spec changes (if I think they are needed). Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in messing with the metadata unless I see a concrete problem that a change will solve. At the moment I see us >> I'm making the same suggestion to Wendy. I'd love for the end result to >> be a truly joint proposal. Well, the way to work together is to find consensus. If we do that any of us can write it down. If not, who wrote the "agreement" doesn't matter. Anyway, on to deal with the things that are overdue already... cheers Chaals >> - Sam Ruby >> >> On 12/02/2014 10:28 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> On 12/02/2014 09:23 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: TL;DR: The administrative hold-ups are now all my fault, so I'm sorry if they persist, and I will start working to remove them... >>> Thanks in advance for helping clear administrative obstacles! (other stuff later) 02.12.2014, 15:57, "Sam Ruby" : > What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? It has been that the chairs have been pretty busy, and we dropped the ball between us. More recently, we sorted that out so the hold up is now me. >>> For discussion purposes: >>> >>> https://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html > Can I ask that you respond to the following email? Yes. That's a very fair request. I may be able to do so tonight… > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html > > Let me know what I need to do. >> Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the >> Process - >> but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only >> really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last >> Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the >> draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you >> need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). > Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating > won't be an option any more. Works for me. I'll start a Call for Consensus - but I imagine it will be a formality. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com >>> - Sam Ruby -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
IndieUI Teleconference Agenda; 3 December at 22:00Z for 60 minutes
Cross-posting as is now usual ... What: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference When: Wednesday 3 December 2:00 PMSan Francisco -- U.S. Pacific Time (PST: UTC -8) 4:00 PMAustin -- U.S. Central Time(CST: UTC -6) 5:00 PMBoston -- U.S. Eastern Time(EST: UTC -5) 10:00 PMLondon -- British Time (BST: UTC +0) 11:00 PMParis -- Central European Time (CET: UTC +1) 6:00 AMBeijing -- China Standard Time (Thursday, 13 November CST: UTC +8) 7:00 AMTokyo -- Japan Standard Time(Thursday, 13 November JST: UTC +9) Where: W3C Teleconference--See Below * Time of day conversions Please verify the correct time of this meeting in your time zone using the Fixed Time Clock at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IndieUI+Teleconference&iso=20141203T1700&p1=43&ah=1 ** Preliminary Agenda for IndieUI Task Force Teleconference 3 December 2014 Meeting: IndieUI Task Force Teleconference Chair: Janina_Sajka agenda+ preview agenda with items from two minutes agenda+ End of Year Telecon Scheduling -- Reminder agenda+ Checkin with Web Apps' Editing TF [See below] agenda+ Editor's Report agenda+ `Events Spec Changes Vis a Vis Editing TF agenda+ User Context -- TPAC Followup agenda+ Reconsidering Our Timelines agenda+ Requirements & Use Cases Progress agenda+ Testing Conversation; Polyfills agenda+ User Context Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/3 agenda+ Events Issues & Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/track/products/2 agenda+ Other Business agenda+ Be Done Resource: TPAC Minutes Monday: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-indie-ui-minutes.html Tuesday:http://www.w3.org/2014/10/28-indie-ui-minutes.html Resource: Teleconference Minutes http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-indie-ui-minutes.html Resource: Web Apps Editing TF Editing Explainer: http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/ User Intentions: http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/commands-explainer.html Resource: For Reference Home Page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ Email Archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/ Resource: Teleconference Logistics Dial the Zakim bridge using either SIP or the PSTN. PSTN: +1.617.761.6200 (This is a U.S. number). SIP: za...@voip.w3.org You should be prompted for a pass code, This is 46343# (INDIE#) Alternatively, bypass the Zakim prompts and SIP directly into our teleconference. SIP: 0046...@voip.w3.org Instructions for connecting using SIP: http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP Place for users to contribute additional VoIP tips. http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP-tips IRC: server: irc.w3.org, channel: #indie-ui. During the conference you can manage your participation with Zakim commands as follows: 61# to mute yourself 60# to unMute yourself 41# to raise your hand (enter speaking queue) 40# to lower your hand (exit speaking queue) The system acknowledges these commands with a rapid, three-tone confirmation. Mobile phone users especially should use the mute function if they don't have a mute function in their phone. But the hand-raising function is a good idea for anyone not using IRC. * IRC access An IRC channel will be available. The server is irc.w3.org, The port number is 6665 (Note this is not the normal default) and The channel is #indie-ui. * Some helpful Scribing and Participation Tips http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/Teleconference_cheat_sheet For more on the IRC setup and the robots we use for agenda and speaker queuing and for posting the log to the web, see: - For RRSAgent, that captures and posts the log with special attention to action items: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent - For Zakim, the IRC interface to the bridge manager, that will maintain speaker and agenda queues: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot - For a Web gateway to IRC you can use if your network administrators forbid IRC, see: http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc - For more on W3C use of IRC see: http://www.w3.org/Project/IRC/ -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:jan...@asterisk.rednote.net Email: jan...@rednote.net The Linux Foundation Chair, Open Accessibility: http://a11y.org The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf IndieUI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
On 12/02/2014 04:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: [offlist] Oopsie. Note to self: double check cc list before sending emails. In any case, the suggestion for pull requests applies to everyone. - Sam Ruby I notice that you are on GitHub. One thing I encourage you to do is to directly edit: https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/workmode.md Expand the proposal, fix mistakes, correct typos -- everything is fair game. This will result in pull requests, but pretty much anything that doesn't unnecessarily cause somebody to come unglued I'll take. The same thing is true for the working draft: https://github.com/w3ctag/url/tree/develop Change the copyright, status, metadata at the top of url.bs. Heck, if you feel so inclined, change the spec itself. I'm making the same suggestion to Wendy. I'd love for the end result to be a truly joint proposal. - Sam Ruby On 12/02/2014 10:28 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On 12/02/2014 09:23 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: TL;DR: The administrative hold-ups are now all my fault, so I'm sorry if they persist, and I will start working to remove them... Thanks in advance for helping clear administrative obstacles! (other stuff later) 02.12.2014, 15:57, "Sam Ruby" : What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? It has been that the chairs have been pretty busy, and we dropped the ball between us. More recently, we sorted that out so the hold up is now me. For discussion purposes: https://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html Can I ask that you respond to the following email? Yes. That's a very fair request. I may be able to do so tonight… http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html Let me know what I need to do. Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating won't be an option any more. Works for me. I'll start a Call for Consensus - but I imagine it will be a formality. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com - Sam Ruby
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
[offlist] I notice that you are on GitHub. One thing I encourage you to do is to directly edit: https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/workmode.md Expand the proposal, fix mistakes, correct typos -- everything is fair game. This will result in pull requests, but pretty much anything that doesn't unnecessarily cause somebody to come unglued I'll take. The same thing is true for the working draft: https://github.com/w3ctag/url/tree/develop Change the copyright, status, metadata at the top of url.bs. Heck, if you feel so inclined, change the spec itself. I'm making the same suggestion to Wendy. I'd love for the end result to be a truly joint proposal. - Sam Ruby On 12/02/2014 10:28 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On 12/02/2014 09:23 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: TL;DR: The administrative hold-ups are now all my fault, so I'm sorry if they persist, and I will start working to remove them... Thanks in advance for helping clear administrative obstacles! (other stuff later) 02.12.2014, 15:57, "Sam Ruby" : What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? It has been that the chairs have been pretty busy, and we dropped the ball between us. More recently, we sorted that out so the hold up is now me. For discussion purposes: https://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html Can I ask that you respond to the following email? Yes. That's a very fair request. I may be able to do so tonight… http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html Let me know what I need to do. Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating won't be an option any more. Works for me. I'll start a Call for Consensus - but I imagine it will be a formality. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com - Sam Ruby
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
On 12/02/2014 09:23 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: TL;DR: The administrative hold-ups are now all my fault, so I'm sorry if they persist, and I will start working to remove them... Thanks in advance for helping clear administrative obstacles! (other stuff later) 02.12.2014, 15:57, "Sam Ruby" : What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? It has been that the chairs have been pretty busy, and we dropped the ball between us. More recently, we sorted that out so the hold up is now me. For discussion purposes: https://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html Can I ask that you respond to the following email? Yes. That's a very fair request. I may be able to do so tonight… http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html Let me know what I need to do. Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating won't be an option any more. Works for me. I'll start a Call for Consensus - but I imagine it will be a formality. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com - Sam Ruby
[Bug 26516] Make resize events etc to be synchronized with animation frames
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26516 Simon Pieters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Simon Pieters --- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/c2574d95256b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
TL;DR: The administrative hold-ups are now all my fault, so I'm sorry if they persist, and I will start working to remove them... (other stuff later) 02.12.2014, 15:57, "Sam Ruby" : > What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? It has been that the chairs have been pretty busy, and we dropped the ball between us. More recently, we sorted that out so the hold up is now me. > Can I ask that you respond to the following email? Yes. That's a very fair request. I may be able to do so tonight… > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html > > Let me know what I need to do. >> Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - >> but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only >> really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last >> Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the >> draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you >> need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). > > Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating > won't be an option any more. Works for me. I'll start a Call for Consensus - but I imagine it will be a formality. Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: URL Spec WorkMode
On 12/02/2014 06:55 AM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: TL;DR: Administrative details from the W3C Webapps cochair responsible for URL in that group. Relevant in practice is a request to minimise channels of communication to simplify spec archaeology, and especially to prefer public-webapps over www-archive, but I don't see there is any reason this WorkMode cannot be used. TL;DR: the Invited Expert Agreement and public statements regarding the contents of private Member Agreements is an obstacle; as are the lack of substantive technical feedback on the public-webapps list. 02.12.2014, 04:19, "Sam Ruby" : On 11/18/2014 03:18 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Meanwhile, I'm working to integrate the following first into the WHATWG version of the spec, and then through the WebApps process: http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html Integration is proceeding, current results can be seen here: https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ It is no longer clear to me what "through the WebApps process" means. In an attempt to help define such, I'm making a proposal: https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/workmode.md#preface At this point, I'm looking for general feedback. I'm particularly interested in things I may have missed. A bunch of comments about how to work with a W3C group: Participation and Communication… In W3C there is a general desire to track contributions, and ensure that contributors have made patent commitments. When discussion is managed through the W3C working group, the chairs and staff contact take responsibility for this, in conjunction with editors. If the editor wants to use other sources, then we ask the editor to take responsibility for tracking those sources. The normal approach is to request that contributors join the Working Group, either as invited experts or because they represent a member organisation. In many cases, contributors are already represented in webapps - for instance while Anne van Kesteren isn't personally a member, his employer is, and there is therefore a commitment from them. Examples of obstacles: 1) The no «Branching» language in the Invited Expert agreement: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2007/06-invited-expert 2) Public assertions that the Member agreements limit ways that specs can be used to ways permitted by the W3C Document license. Example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0166.html I plan to work closely with W3C Legal to address both of these issues. While webapps generally prefers conversations to be on the webapps list (because it makes it easier to do the archaeology in a decade or so if someone needs to), there is no formal ban on using other sources. However, I would ask that you request comments on publicly archived lists, and specifically that you strongly prefer public-webapps@w3.org (which is a list designated for technical discussion whose subscribers include W3C members who expect to discuss work items in the scope of the webapps group, such as the URL spec) to www-archive (which is just a place to give a public anchor to random email - the subscription list is completely random and likely not to include many interested W3C members). Recent posts by David Walp, Jonas Sicking and Domenic Denicola give me some hope that there can be meaningful technical discussion on this list. That being said, this is an ongoing concern that needs to be addressed. The TR Process… The WHATWG document is not a "Public Working Draft" in the sense of the W3C Process (which has implications for e.g. patent policy). Regularly publishing a Public Working Draft to w3.org/TR is part of what makes the patent policy work, since commitments are bound to various stages including the latest Public Working Draft (i.e. TR version, not editors' draft) before someone left the group [wds]. Those snapshots are required to be hosted by W3C and to meet the team's requirements, as determined by the Team from time to time. If there is an issue there, let's deal with it when we see it. What is the hold-up for publishing a Public Working Draft? Can I ask that you respond to the following email? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014OctDec/0315.html Let me know what I need to do. Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). Lets update to 2014 now. Its only a matter of time before not updating won't be an option any more. Documents published by W3C are published under whatever license W3C decides. The Webapps charter explicitly calls out the URL spec for publishing under the CC-BY license [chart], so that is what I would e
Re: URL Spec WorkMode (was: PSA: Sam Ruby is co-Editor of URL spec)
TL;DR: Administrative details from the W3C Webapps cochair responsible for URL in that group. Relevant in practice is a request to minimise channels of communication to simplify spec archaeology, and especially to prefer public-webapps over www-archive, but I don't see there is any reason this WorkMode cannot be used. 02.12.2014, 04:19, "Sam Ruby" : > On 11/18/2014 03:18 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Meanwhile, I'm working to integrate the following first into the WHATWG >> version of the spec, and then through the WebApps process: >> >> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html > > Integration is proceeding, current results can be seen here: > > https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ > > It is no longer clear to me what "through the WebApps process" means. > In an attempt to help define such, I'm making a proposal: > > https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/workmode.md#preface > > At this point, I'm looking for general feedback. I'm particularly > interested in things I may have missed. A bunch of comments about how to work with a W3C group: Participation and Communication… In W3C there is a general desire to track contributions, and ensure that contributors have made patent commitments. When discussion is managed through the W3C working group, the chairs and staff contact take responsibility for this, in conjunction with editors. If the editor wants to use other sources, then we ask the editor to take responsibility for tracking those sources. The normal approach is to request that contributors join the Working Group, either as invited experts or because they represent a member organisation. In many cases, contributors are already represented in webapps - for instance while Anne van Kesteren isn't personally a member, his employer is, and there is therefore a commitment from them. While webapps generally prefers conversations to be on the webapps list (because it makes it easier to do the archaeology in a decade or so if someone needs to), there is no formal ban on using other sources. However, I would ask that you request comments on publicly archived lists, and specifically that you strongly prefer public-webapps@w3.org (which is a list designated for technical discussion whose subscribers include W3C members who expect to discuss work items in the scope of the webapps group, such as the URL spec) to www-archive (which is just a place to give a public anchor to random email - the subscription list is completely random and likely not to include many interested W3C members). The TR Process… The WHATWG document is not a "Public Working Draft" in the sense of the W3C Process (which has implications for e.g. patent policy). Regularly publishing a Public Working Draft to w3.org/TR is part of what makes the patent policy work, since commitments are bound to various stages including the latest Public Working Draft (i.e. TR version, not editors' draft) before someone left the group [wds]. Those snapshots are required to be hosted by W3C and to meet the team's requirements, as determined by the Team from time to time. If there is an issue there, let's deal with it when we see it. Webapps still generally works under the 2005 version of the Process - but we could change this document to the 2014 process. The only really noticeable difference will be that there is formally no "Last Call", and the final Patent Exclusion opportunity is instead for the draft published as Candidate Recommendation. (In other words, you need to be pretty bureaucratically-minded to notice a difference). Documents published by W3C are published under whatever license W3C decides. The Webapps charter explicitly calls out the URL spec for publishing under the CC-BY license [chart], so that is what I would expect for all snapshots. For normative references, at least until Last Call or CR (depending on whether you use the modern Process) I don't think we need to care a huge amount. When we do get there, the policy for publishing at W3C will determine what we can do in a W3C publication - although we should note that there is a lot of discussion about references that fails to take reality into account,and many specs have "normative references" that are actually unusable normatively. My *personal* sense is that a lot more references should be informative, admitting the state of the universe as it is rather than as we wish it were. But I'm inclined to cross that when we get there. Editors Editors of W3C specs are required [eds] to be members of the Working Group publishing the spec. Webapps is pretty liberal about appointing editors - the principal criteria are "you are in the group and volunteer to do work". Patent Policy As I read the invited expert agreement [iea] it uses "branching" (quoted - french-style) as an example of "creating derivative works that include the Invited Expert's contributions when those derivative works are likely to cause confusion ab
Re: Broken links
> If my requirement is still unclear please try to read this question on > StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/q/27206268/607407 > (http://stackoverflow.com/q/27206268/607407). It basically describes the > problem. Hi Jakub, thanks for bringing this up - I've replied on StackOverflow, and it's a good reminder that what's in an editor's draft matters. In the HTML5 spec, in the IDL declaration, the setData() method is underneath the comment /* old interface */. I suppose we could add a more obvious comment explaining that this API only handles strings and data that can be stringified. To avoid moving a potential list conversation over to the StackOverflow website, excellent though it is, here's my full response from SO: I'm the editor of the Clipboard APIs spec. First, sorry about the broken link. It is actually working in the official TR: http://www.w3.org/TR/clipboard-apis/ But not in the Editor's Draft, for somewhat messy process reasons (the "official" HTML5 spec dropped stuff the Clipboard API spec relies on, hard-coding a link to a specific historical snapshot of the official HTML5 spec seems like a bad idea - so I need to decide whether to simply link to the WHATWG spec or wait until a hypotethical HTML6-brings-DnD-back-in situation happens). Now, fixing this link doesn't actually solve your problem - because even in the [supposedly bleeding-edge WHATWG spec][1], setData() is specified as taking a string. Web technology is a work in progress, and you've come across a use case that the (older) setData() API did not take into account. This part of the API dates back to the original Microsoft implementation To be fair, JavaScript itself didn't really have convenient ways to work with binary data back then.. What you probably want to use, is the [clipboardData.items.add() API][2] passing in [a File object][3] with the relevant data and type. Note that this isn't widely implemented yet, for example AFAIK it's not supported in any current version of Firefox. You can detect the lack of clipboardData.items and .items.add(), and for example tell users to right-click and image and choose "copy to clipboard" manually. [1]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#the-datatransfer-interface [2]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#dom-datatransferitemlist-add [3]: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#file -Hallvord (right now stuck in Iceland for weather reasons, but too focused on work to be in the Blue lagoon ;))
