Re: [selectors-api] Scoped Selectors

Lachlan Hunt wrote: John Resig wrote: With that in mind, option #3 looks the best to me. It's lame that the API will be longer but we'll be able to use basic object detection to see if it exists. Unfortunately the proper scoping wasn't done the first time the Selectors API was implemented so

Re: Please don't call your API "simple"

On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: There already is a "WebDatabase" API which is SQL based. That sounds way to close to "WebDB" for my comfort. Maybe WebDatabase should be WebSQLDatabase or WebSQLDB I have suggested this before [1], but fighting about names seems to be a l

Re: [selectors-api] Summary of Feature Requests for v2

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/25/09 1:35 AM, Garrett Smith wrote: >> >> No, you did not say it is slow. I'm saying that your laptop is >> probably a lot more powerful than a mobile device with a browser, such >> as Blackberry9000. Do you agree with that? > > Sure.  I

[widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

All, From: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux Date: September 30, 2009 9:45:49 AM EDT To: Robin Berjon Cc: Marcos Caceres , public-mwts m...@w3.org>, public-webapps , Scott Wilson Subject: Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec Archived-At:

Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Le mercredi 30 septembre 2009 à 15:32 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit : >> Also, does going to LC again re-open an exclusionary period? I think >> we can't go to Rec (and probably not to PR) until the exclusionary >> period is over. D

[WebIDL] Trying to understand IndexGetter/NameGetter

In section 4.4.2 of WebIDL, there is the following language: As soon as a name N begins being able to be used to index the host object, a property called the corresponding named property MUST be created on the host object... IndexGetter has similar verbiage. I'm really not clear on this

Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

Le mercredi 30 septembre 2009 à 15:32 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit : > Also, does going to LC again re-open an exclusionary period? I think > we can't go to Rec (and probably not to PR) until the exclusionary > period is over. Dom? A new LC opens a 2 months exclusion period during which the gro

Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:10 , Marcos Caceres wrote: Robin Berjon wrote: I like this plan. My primary concern is that we communicate it clearly to third parties. Agreed. However, CR is a call for implementation - it is not a sign of complete stability. I know, but that does not prevent us f

Re: skipping and ignoring

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > 2009/9/24 Robin Berjon : >> On Sep 23, 2009, at 16:51 , Marcos Caceres wrote: But instead of ignored it says skipped — and it's not clear whether skipped has the same meaning. >>> >>> Good point. The second must not be proces

[widgets] Draft Agenda for 1 October 2009 Voice Conf

Below is the draft agenda for the October 1 Widgets Voice Conference (VC). Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting: htt

Re: [A&E] Last Call comments (1)

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Marcin Hanclik wrote: > Hi Marcos, > 5.4.2#2.4.1 ... apply the  rule for dealing with an invalid Zip archive ... And "In the event that an implementation encounters an invalid Zip archive ... In the case the UA is a CC, it must inform the a

RE: [A&E] Last Call comments (1)

Hi Marcos, >>> 5.4.2#2.4.1 >>> ... apply the rule for dealing with an invalid Zip archive ... >>> And >>> "In the event that an implementation encounters an invalid Zip archive ... >>> In the case the UA is a CC, it must inform the author that the Zip archive >>is an invalid Zip archive." From P&

Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

Robin Berjon wrote: On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:36 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: For what it's worth, given that: * P&C has been vastly rewritten * test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK) * you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements which could be assessed as a subs

Re: [widgets] Conformance Checker assertions spec

On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:36 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: For what it's worth, given that: * P&C has been vastly rewritten * test results collection hasn't started (AFAIK) * you're suggesting to remove a bunch of conformance requirements which could be assessed as a substantive change I thi

Re: [widgets] Test suite questions

On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:14 , Marcos Caceres wrote: ta-VngNBkhUXz: "If the protocol used for acquisition of a potential Zip archive does not provide, or otherwise include, a media type, then a user agent should treat the acquired potential Zip archive as if it has been acquired from a

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

On Sep 29, 2009, at 08:17 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On Sep 28, 2009, at 01:19 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: If at all possible I'd rather it went to LC ASAP, and if needed that new stuff be done in