Hi all,
The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we
still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications to hopefully
avoid that people use them as a reference.
I propose that we add a pointer to the contemporary specification to the
following
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
myFileEntry.createWriter(function(mywriter) {
// write some data
mywriter.write(someblob);
// wait for success
mywriter.onwrite = function() {
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yes. How exactly it works is something that is being discussed in this
very thread. The idea discussed so far is to have an explicit
FileWriter.close() call which would release the lock. The lock would
also be released
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires gshi...@google.com wrote:
Some of the reasons we believe that the JavaScript Speech API is best
suited for WebApps, instead of it's own working group, include:
1. Speech is likely to become a core API, like other WebApps deliverables
such as File
On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires gshi...@google.com
wrote:
2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaScript APIs.
The XG group consisted of a large number of speech experts, but only
a few with broad web
I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed replacement specs
reach REC status.
G.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we
still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM
I support adding warnings. As far as I know, all major browser vendors are
using the more modern version of each of these specs for implementation
work. That's certainly true for WebKit at least. It doesn't help anyone to
look at outdated specs considering them to be the latest and greatest when
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed replacement specs
reach REC status.
Why?
The real world of modern spec use and authoring is no longer tightly tied
to reaching REC (or even CR or PR), and the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we
still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications to hopefully
avoid that people use them as a reference.
I propose that we add a
Hi Art,
That's a very good point about IP commitments. I think it's likely to speed
up the process of getting something standardized if companies don't have to
make the broad IP commitments to all of a WG's activities that would be
required if the work was entirely done within an existing WG.
As
I work in an industry where devices are certified against final
specifications, some of which are mandated by laws and regulations. The
current DOM-2 specs are still relevant with respect to these certification
processes and regulations.
I do not object to adding an informative, warning notice to
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
I work in an industry where devices are certified against final
specifications, some of which are mandated by laws and regulations. The
current DOM-2 specs are still relevant with respect to these certification
processes and
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
I work in an industry where devices are certified against final
specifications, some of which are mandated by laws and regulations. The
current
Tab,
Le 23 janv. 2012 à 22:03, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
We have repeated evidence that pretending these specs aren't obsolete
and useless hurts web implementors and authors. We're targeting the
web with our specs, so that's extremely relevant for us, more so than
non-web industries dealing
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:06:34 +0100, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
As such, the creation of tests should not be left to CR... there should
be a plan in place (e.g. a person, and a loose policy, like as we
implement, we'll make tests and contribute them to the WG), and a
person
In looking at the count method in IDBObjectStore and IDBIndex we noticed that
its signature doesn't throw a TransactionInactiveError when the transaction
being used is inactive. We would like to add this to the spec.
In addition, the index method in IDBObjectStore uses InvalidStateError to
* Ms2ger wrote:
The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we
still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications to hopefully
avoid that people use them as a reference.
If you want to say more than that the specifications are no longer being
maintained and
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
In looking at the count method in IDBObjectStore and IDBIndex we noticed
that its signature doesn't throw a TransactionInactiveError when the
transaction being used is inactive. We would like to add this to the spec.
There's another edge case here - what happens on a put (etc) request to an
object store with a key generator when the object store's key path does not
yield a value, yet the algorithm below exits without changing the value.
Sample:
store = db.createObjectStore(my-store, {keyPath: a.b,
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14404
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed replacement
specs reach REC status.
I object to REC status, and support implementing Ms2ger's proposal
forthwith.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
In looking at the count method in IDBObjectStore and IDBIndex we noticed
that its signature doesn't throw a TransactionInactiveError when the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Ms2ger wrote:I propose that we add a pointer to the contemporary
specification to the
following specifications:
...
* DOM 2 Style (CSSOM)
* DOM 2 Traversal and Range (DOM4)
...
As far as I am aware, CSSOM is
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose that we add a pointer to the contemporary specification to the
following specifications:
* DOM 2 Core (DOM4)
* DOM 2 Views (HTML)
* DOM 2 Events (D3E)
* DOM 2 Style (CSSOM)
* DOM 2 Traversal and Range (DOM4)
* DOM
24 matches
Mail list logo
