I just read through this thread, and found it really interesting. Figured I
would chime in with my opinions, for whatever that's worth.
Firstly, let me explain I run a project called flXHR (http://flxhr.flensed.com)
which is an XHR clone variant with cross-domain Ajax capability (using
Le mercredi 08 juillet 2009 à 15:20 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I'm mostly satisfied, but see a few comments below.
I'm now satisfied, thanks.
Dom
Hi y'all,
an update on these todo items:
On Jun 29, 2009, at 18:46 , Robin Berjon wrote:
- viewMode needs to refer to Widgets-WM. Can we agree on what we
need to FPWD that one so that there's something to point to?
Does no one have an opinion on this?
- locale doesn't make much sense: it's
The draft minutes from the July 9 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/07/09-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 30 July 2009 (the
All,
During the Widget group's July 9 conference call, we discussed Josh's
concern and the agreement was to record the concern and to continue
with the current model.
The minutes from that discussion are at [1].
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1]
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20090618/
Comment 1
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets/
Editorial/substantive: S
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
-
Comment:
We second Martin's comments at
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 1
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 7.2 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#examples]
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 3
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 8.3
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 4
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 8.3
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 6
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 9.1, step 5
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 5
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: S
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 9.1, step 5
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 2
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 8.3
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/
Comment 7
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: AP
Location in reviewed document:
Section 9.1, step 4
On Jul 9, 2009, at 21:15 , ish...@w3.org wrote:
I suspect that, depending on the use of the URI, they really do mean
IRI here, though.
Yes, that is correct. It's a quick oversight largely due to
simplemindedly using URI throughout because it's in the
specification's name. It'll be fixed
Richard, All,
Even though June 19 was the deadline for comments for the PC LCWD,
we welcome comments for that document at any time.
I created the following document to track late comments and added the
seven comments Richard sent today:
Hi,
Any other vestiages from the past in the IDL that seems ripe for change?
'InterfaceInheritance' is currently defined as a ScopedNameList or
epsilon. But in practice I don't see any web interface that actually
uses the multiple interface inheritance like,
interface X : A, B, C
{
}
Shiki Okasaka:
'InterfaceInheritance' is currently defined as a ScopedNameList or
epsilon. But in practice I don't see any web interface that actually
uses the multiple interface inheritance like,
interface X : A, B, C
{
}
SVG does:
SVG does:
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/idl.html
Admittedly this isn’t Web IDL, still OMG IDL.
I see. Thanks Cameron. So even though it seems those can be replaced
by 'implements', is it not a plan?
- Shiki
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron McCormackc...@mcc.id.au
Shiki Okasaka:
I see. Thanks Cameron. So even though it seems those can be replaced
by 'implements', is it not a plan?
They could be replaced with ‘implements’, but not without breaking Java
bindings. Existing code that compiles against the SVG 1.1 interfaces
might not compile against them if
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:39:15 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also it is not clear whether Web Workers reuses the generic task sources
defined in HTML5 or whether it has any task sources at
20 matches
Mail list logo
