On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>> On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Apps would need a way to disable
notifications dur
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. Apps would need a way to disable
>>> notifications during such animation sequences, and would be able to find
>>> ano
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > >
> > > For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages
> > > that might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optiona
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Ian Fette (�~B��~B��~C��~C~U�~B��~C~C�~C~F�~B�) wrote:
>
> I understand this point of view. That said, there is a lot of
> disagreement in the IETF WG about deflate-stream. The extension
> basically breaks all other extensions, framing, etc. It's a bit of a
> mess and a lot
On 7/21/11 4:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
I can say that it's very common and critical for editors.
I'd really like numbers. Having looked at the Gecko editor code in the
past, I don't share your assurance that this is how it works
That said, if you point to a workload, I (or anyone else;
Ian,
I understand this point of view. That said, there is a lot of disagreement
in the IETF WG about deflate-stream. The extension basically breaks all
other extensions, framing, etc. It's a bit of a mess and a lot of us want to
just yank it out entirely. There was a much better proposal by yoshin
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> But internally, a node movement is a removal then an insertion. There's
> always possibility that a node gets removed then inserted again after
> mutation observers are invoked. Also, what happens if a function removed a
> bunch of nodes and
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13321
Tab Atkins Jr. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >
> > For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that
> > might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP
> > and it doesn't appear to have caused p
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13322
Summary: Add UDP! Quake uses UDP, I can't continue development
of WebQuake because it uses UDP.
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
>
> For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that
> might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP
> and it doesn't appear to have caused problems or made some sites work
> and others not based on some do
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13321
Summary: This is amazing! Awesome for multiplayer games!
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top
OS/Vers
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:02:31 +0200, Adrian Bateman
wrote:
For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that
might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP
and it
doesn't appear to have caused problems or made some sites work and others
not based o
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:26:21 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
> > What do others (Anne?, Maciej?, ...) think about this issue?
>
> I don't know enough about the WebSocket protocol, but optional web
> platform features suck. They will b
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> Given the Protocol is now in LC review, it seems relatively important to
> align the API and Protocol.
The API and the protocal _are_ aligned. The protocol asks for the consumer
to provide a list of extensions. Nothing in the protocol requires that
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:26:21 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
What do others (Anne?, Maciej?, ...) think about this issue?
I don't know enough about the WebSocket protocol, but optional web
platform features suck. They will become mandatory following the typical
"dominant implementation does
Bug 12917 [1] has been discussed in at least bugzilla as well as e-mail
including this thread started by Adrian (Hixie's follow-up is [2]) and
Adrian's general Web Sockets LC thread [3].
This bug is currently resolved as WontFix and this resolution is
supported by at least Hixie and Jonas. Adr
On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Apps would need a way to disable
notifications during such animation sequences, and would be able to find
another means to serialize the animation (at a higher level).
I'm not sure
On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Apps would need a way to disable
notifications during such animation sequences, and would be able to find
another means to serialize the animation (at a higher level).
I'm not sure I trust apps to do that, which is why I think
Regarding the bugs Adrian identified in the e-mail below, here is my
take on the status:
* Resolved: NeedsInfo: 9973, 12180, 13104; WontFix: 12816, 13178
* Moved to another component: 10213
* Open and considered Editorial (thus will not block LC): 12510, 13162,
13180 and 13172 (not in Adrian's
On 20/07/11 21:34, David Flanagan wrote:
On 7/19/11 4:01 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
'listener' above would be a function which receives a single argument
when notifications fire. The value of this argument would be an Array
which could look something like this:
[ { target: node1, type: "childlist
On 07/21/2011 01:56 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 07/20/2011 06:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hence I'm leaning towards using the almost-asynchronous proposal for
now. If we end up getting the feedback from people that use mutation
events today
On 20/07/11 18:23, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
It's pretty common to have situations where lots (10-20) of properties
are set in inline style, especially in cases where the inline style is
being changed via CSS2Properties from script (think animations and the
like, where the objects being animated ten
23 matches
Mail list logo
