https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15292
Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On 2011-12-22 03:58, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/21/11 9:43 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I just made a small discovery;
Chrome 16 sends, e.g.
Access-Control-Request-Headers: Content-Type
Firefox 8.0 sends, contrastively:
Access-Control-Request-Headers: content-type
Given the requirement for
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15307
Anne ann...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15305
Anne ann...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15306
Anne ann...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
Chrome sends:
Access-Control-Request-Headers:Origin, Content-Type, Accept
Is that just wrong?
The spec clearly says: author request
Below is an advanced notice that RDFa 1.1 is going back to LC so if
anyone has any pre-LC comments, please send them to
public-rdfa...@w3.org by January 15.
Original Message
Subject:Heads up: RDFa 1.1 headed into Last Call in January 2012
Resent-Date:Thu, 22 Dec
On 2011-12-22 10:34, Julian Reschke wrote:
...
So what Firefox is doing is correct, and what Chrome is doing is wrong.
Indeed. However the requirement in the spec sounds really pointless.
...
I opened https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15312 to track
this.
Best regards,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15293
Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
this what you had in mind?
CSSOM interfaces are attached to the document specifically though - right?
And they (at least that I can recall) have no association concept with
scope (yet)... So I think that implies that unless
On 12/22/11 6:17 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Jarred, along the lines of my question of 'what is a user header',
what spec would one read to learn that lower-casing was correct? I
looked for it and did not find it in the CORS draft.
It's in both
Good job!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712622
On 12/21/2011 01:23 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Happy Holidays!
In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
the Shadow DOM Specification:
Hello Glen,
The proposal says that it contains a simplified subset of the
JavaScript API. Could you please clarify which elements of the
HTMLSpeech recommendation's JavaScript API were omitted? I think this
would be the most efficient way for those of us familiar with the XG
recommendation
Milan,
The IDLs contained in both documents are in the same format and order, so
it's relatively easy to compare the two
sidehttp://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-20111206/#speechreco-section
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
this what you had in mind?
CSSOM interfaces are attached to the document specifically though - right?
And they (at least that I can recall) have no
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply. Is
this what you had in mind?
CSSOM interfaces are attached to the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
ShadowRoot is a Node, so all of the typical DOM accessors apply.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15316
Summary: this is a test of the w3 html5 web messaging form
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top
So... I was going to ask a follow up here but as I tried to formulate I
went back to the draft and it became kind of clear that I don't actually
understand shadow or content elements at all... ShadowRoot has a
constructor, but it doesn't seem to have anything in its signature that
would give you
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
So... I was going to ask a follow up here but as I tried to formulate I went
back to the draft and it became kind of clear that I don't actually
understand shadow or content elements at all... ShadowRoot has a
BTW, added an example:
dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#shadow-dom-example
:DG
21 matches
Mail list logo
