Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

[Arthur Barstow]

On 3/24/15 3:52 PM, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:

Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv:

On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur
Barstow  wrote:

2.; this
test
failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)
that
is expected to be fixed.

I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers "a
bug". Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
an API work off the main thread.

That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
soon.


Thanks for this info Jonas.

My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the
main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or
someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second
implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that
at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in
progress.

Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes
and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving
this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your
position a "formal objection"?



Hi,

if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome 
canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.


(Fixes for 
http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html 
should appear overnight also.)


hth


Yes, that is indeed helpful. Thanks Sigbjorn!

-ArtB

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

[Sigbjorn Finne]

Den 3/24/2015 20:37, Arthur Barstow skreiv:

On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur
Barstow  wrote:

2.; this
test
failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker)
that
is expected to be fixed.

I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers "a
bug". Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
an API work off the main thread.

That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
soon.


Thanks for this info Jonas.

My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the
main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or
someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second
implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that
at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in
progress.

Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes
and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving
this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your
position a "formal objection"?



Hi,

if it helps, Blink now passes those two failing tests; Chrome 
canary/nightly builds have the fixes included.


(Fixes for 
http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/{008,009}.html should 
appear overnight also.)


hth
--sigbjorn

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

[Arthur Barstow]

On 3/21/15 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstow  wrote:

2.; this test
failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug
(MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that
is expected to be fixed.

I'm not sure that we can really consider lack of support in Workers "a
bug". Worker support is generally non-trivial since it requires making
an API work off the main thread.

That said, mozilla has patches for worker support in progress right
now, so hopefully Firefox can serve as second implementation here
soon.


Thanks for this info Jonas.

My characterization of this failure wasn't especially good. I think the 
main point with respect to discussing this failure with the Director (or 
someone acting on his behalf) is that the lack of a second 
implementation is not caused by a bug/issue in the spec itself, and that 
at least one other browser vendor already has a relevant patches in 
progress.


Given the large majority of the tests (84/86) have two or more passes 
and the patch you mention above, it seems reasonable to request moving 
this spec to PR now. Is that OK with you or should we consider your 
position a "formal objection"?


-Thanks, ArtB

Re: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"

[Arthur Barstow]

On 3/24/15 10:21 AM, Richard Ishida wrote:
is it possible to send mail to www-internatio...@w3.org each time 
someone adds somethign to the github issue? (this is the list where we 
track and discuss issues).


if so, i see no real difference between using github or bugzilla – our 
process is designed to cope with both bugzilla and email based 
comments (though it would normally be better to start with the right 
one rather than switch part way, so changing the SOD would indeed help).


we should also ensure, however, that the titles of the issues and any 
associated notification mails always contain the i18n-issue-xxx string 
that will allow us and tracker to locate information for a given thread.


FYI, I just added "[i18n-issue-NNN]" to the title of the five Github 
issues Ken created ([GH]) for the issues Addison submitted (and created 
the "I18N-WG" label for them).


I don't know if the GH repo can be configured such that all activity for 
just these issues can be automagically Cc'ed to www-international but I 
know Dom has done so related work so I will follow up with him separately.


The boiler plate asking for feedback via GH and the Status section 
asking for feedback via p-webapps is certainly suboptimal. AFAIK, 
PubRules mandates the comment list. If we can't get that restriction 
lifted, I recommend the relevant text in the SotD clearly state using GH 
for comments/bugs/issues is *strongly preferred* and the list should 
only be used as a `last resort`.


(FYI, all of WebApps' GH activity is mirrored to [p-w-gh], thus all I18n 
activity can be found in the archive, f.ex. via [i18n].)


-Thanks, ArtB

[GH] 
[p-w-gh] 
[i18n] 

Re: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"

[Kenneth Rohde Christiansen]

As far as I know, you can watch individual issues with GitHub, so you could
create a GitHub account with that email address and then watch relevant
issues. Also it would mean that an email would be sent if someone mentioned
the user (ie @www-international) in any issue

Kenneth

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM Richard Ishida  wrote:

> is it possible to send mail to www-internatio...@w3.org each time
> someone adds somethign to the github issue? (this is the list where we
> track and discuss issues).
>
> if so, i see no real difference between using github or bugzilla – our
> process is designed to cope with both bugzilla and email based comments
> (though it would normally be better to start with the right one rather
> than switch part way, so changing the SOD would indeed help).
>
> we should also ensure, however, that the titles of the issues and any
> associated notification mails always contain the i18n-issue-xxx string
> that will allow us and tracker to locate information for a given thread.
>
>
> ri
>
>
>
> On 20/03/2015 16:40, Christiansen, Kenneth R wrote:
> > Marcos, Anssi, what do you think?
> >
> > I would prefer the comments on GitHub as it seems to be a great place
> for interacting with the web community, judging from our success so far.
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addi...@lab126.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:43 PM
> >> To: Christiansen, Kenneth R; public-webapps@w3.org
> >> Cc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org
> >> Subject: RE: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"
> >>
> >> Hi Kenneth,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply.
> >>
> >> I know you're using GitHub. However, whenever I'm filing/forwarding
> >> comments on a document on behalf of the Working Group, I always look at
> >> the SOTD in the document in question to see what instructions the
> receiving
> >> WG has. In this case, you have a fairly generic SOTD, which says in
> part:
> >>
> >> --
> >> This document was published by the Web Applications (WebApps) Working
> >> Group as a Working Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C
> >> Recommendation. If you wish to make comments regarding this document,
> >> please send them to public-webapps@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All
> >> comments are welcome.
> >> --
> >>
> >> If you prefer to have comments filed to GitHub, perhaps modify your
> >> instructions?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Addison
> >>
> >> Addison Phillips
> >> Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126)
> >> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
> >>
> >> Internationalization is not a feature.
> >> It is an architecture.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Christiansen, Kenneth R
> >>> [mailto:kenneth.r.christian...@intel.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:15 AM
> >>> To: Phillips, Addison; public-webapps@w3.org
> >>> Cc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org
> >>> Subject: RE: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"
> >>>
> >>> Hi there,
> >>>
> >>> The spec authors use GitHub for issue tracking. I duplicated your
> issues
> >> there:
> >>> https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for looking into internationalization issues with the current
> spec.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Kenneth
> >>>
>  -Original Message-
>  From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addi...@lab126.com]
>  Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:20 PM
>  To: public-webapps@w3.org
>  Cc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org
>  Subject: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"
> 
>  Hello Webapps,
> 
>  As previously mentioned, I am about to send you comments from the
>  Internationalization Working Group on your document (whose current
>  iteration lives at [1]). Because we use Tracker for our comments, I
>  will be sending each comment under separate cover. The I18N WG is
>  always happy to discuss our comments or ways to address same. Please
>  let me know if you prefer to receive comments in a different format
>  (such as Bugzilla) or if you need additional information.
> 
>  If you want to see a summary of our comments, you can find them
>  tracked at [2]
> 
>  Regards (for I18N)
> 
>  Addison
> 
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/ [2]
>  http://www.w3.org/International/track/products/74
> 
>  Addison Phillips
>  Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N WG)
> 
>  Internationalization is not a feature.
>  It is an architecture.
> >
>
>
>

Re: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"

[Richard Ishida]

is it possible to send mail to www-internatio...@w3.org each time 
someone adds somethign to the github issue? (this is the list where we 
track and discuss issues).


if so, i see no real difference between using github or bugzilla – our 
process is designed to cope with both bugzilla and email based comments 
(though it would normally be better to start with the right one rather 
than switch part way, so changing the SOD would indeed help).


we should also ensure, however, that the titles of the issues and any 
associated notification mails always contain the i18n-issue-xxx string 
that will allow us and tracker to locate information for a given thread.



ri



On 20/03/2015 16:40, Christiansen, Kenneth R wrote:

Marcos, Anssi, what do you think?

I would prefer the comments on GitHub as it seems to be a great place for 
interacting with the web community, judging from our success so far.

Kenneth


-Original Message-
From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addi...@lab126.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:43 PM
To: Christiansen, Kenneth R; public-webapps@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org
Subject: RE: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"

Hi Kenneth,

Thanks for the reply.

I know you're using GitHub. However, whenever I'm filing/forwarding
comments on a document on behalf of the Working Group, I always look at
the SOTD in the document in question to see what instructions the receiving
WG has. In this case, you have a fairly generic SOTD, which says in part:

--
This document was published by the Web Applications (WebApps) Working
Group as a Working Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C
Recommendation. If you wish to make comments regarding this document,
please send them to public-webapps@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All
comments are welcome.
--

If you prefer to have comments filed to GitHub, perhaps modify your
instructions?

Thanks!

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.




-Original Message-
From: Christiansen, Kenneth R
[mailto:kenneth.r.christian...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:15 AM
To: Phillips, Addison; public-webapps@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org
Subject: RE: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"

Hi there,

The spec authors use GitHub for issue tracking. I duplicated your issues

there:

https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues

Thanks for looking into internationalization issues with the current spec.

Cheers,
Kenneth


-Original Message-
From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addi...@lab126.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:20 PM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-c...@w3.org
Subject: I18N comments on "Manifest for Web applications"

Hello Webapps,

As previously mentioned, I am about to send you comments from the
Internationalization Working Group on your document (whose current
iteration lives at [1]). Because we use Tracker for our comments, I
will be sending each comment under separate cover. The I18N WG is
always happy to discuss our comments or ways to address same. Please
let me know if you prefer to receive comments in a different format
(such as Bugzilla) or if you need additional information.

If you want to see a summary of our comments, you can find them
tracked at [2]

Regards (for I18N)

Addison

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/ [2]
http://www.w3.org/International/track/products/74

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Re: [XHR] UTF-16 - do content sniffing or not?

[Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen]

> Which MIME type did you use in the response? BOM sniffing in XML is
> non-normative IIRC. For other types, see below.
>

It's text/plain - seems I definitely need one test with an XML response
too.. and one with JSON.


>
> [[
> If charset is null, set charset to utf-8.
>
> Return the result of running decode on byte stream bytes using fallback
> encoding charset.
> ]]
>

Heh, I stopped reading here.. Assuming that "using fallback encoding
charset" would actually decode the data per that charset..


> https://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#decode
>
> [[
> For each of the rows in the table below, starting with the first one and
> going down, if the first bytes of buffer match all the bytes given in the
> first column, then set encoding to the encoding given in the cell in the
> second column of that row and set BOM seen flag.
> ]]
>
> This step honors the BOM. The fallback encoding is ignored.


That's cool because it means the test is correct as-is. Somewhat less cool
because it means I need to report another bug..
-Hallvord