Stripped the issue marker, this seems more about general process.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:14:16 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:54:49 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:54:49 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would look compelling to me is web content depending on the
specific names. That's more important than whether someone shipped
an implementat
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:54:49 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
In general I don't think we want to set a precedent of locking in bad
names in Editor's Drafts without a compelling reason
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the existi
On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jean-Yves Bitterlich wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the
existing event names, and would write to say so.
I am therefore resolving this
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the existing
event names, and would write to say so.
I am therefore resolving this issue by not changing the names.
I
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the
existing event names, and would write to say so.
I am therefore resolving this issue by not changing the names.
I don't think the JSR objection is very strong, since
Ikivo have told me that they also implemented already with the existing
event names, and would write to say so.
I am therefore resolving this issue by not changing the names.
cheers
Chaals
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:34:50 +0100, Jean-Yves Bitterlich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
To the q
I have clarified in a new Editor's draft to be published tonight (if I can
retrieve my ssh keys from a disk failure - otherwise probably tomorrow so
I can get new ones) that the events follow the normal pattern for DOM 3
events (assuming I wrote the right stuff this time;) ).
cheers
Chaa
On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
I think my bottom line is the same as Boris's, I would like to see
the spec allow XHR implementations not to send GETs with an entity-
body.
I would argue that both the simplest thing and the right thing here
is not to state anything a
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
We're now talking about caching, and I totally agree that more
clarifications are required here (I was referring to the actual
message transmission in my reply).
Caching most certainly affects the message transmission behavior of a
caching client library (which
11 matches
Mail list logo
