Hi!
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
possibility of moving the webapps tests. I was wrongly under the
impression that we had discussed this before (hey, confusion is not a
crime ;) ). Now that HTML has done the move, I think it is time for us to
look
I think it's a good idea. The WebGL specification/tests moved to github
which made contributing patches (as pull requests) a lot easier.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.comwrote:
Hi!
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
On 1/22/13 11:53 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
Hi!
We just had a small discussion on webapps-testsuite [1] about the
possibility of moving the webapps tests. I was wrongly under the
impression that we had discussed this before (hey, confusion is not a
crime ;) ).
We had such
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
There are benefits to both approaches. I would be in favor of having a
repository per spec (named tr_shortname-testsuite). This will make it a
lot easier to securely give scoped commit rights to external contributors
when the
On 1/22/13 12:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
There are benefits to both approaches. I would be in favor of having a
repository per spec (named tr_shortname-testsuite). This will make it a
lot easier to
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a
feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the continuous
flow of features that migrate from HTML5 to WebApps)?
Is your concern about
On 01/22/2013 12:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a
feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the continuous
flow of features that migrate
On 1/22/13 12:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
That's definitely something to keep in mind. How frequent is it that a
feature moves from one spec to another (that, is outside of the
continuous
flow of features
Tobie Langel wrote:
Odin wrote:
Ms2ger proposed merging our repository with HTML at the same time and
not
necessarily having one repository for each group. I was already thinking
such a move might be beneficial to do for webapps and webappsec, but it
might be even more simple to also have
On 22/01/2013 13:27 , Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
I'm not really sure if that is needed. If we can trust someone in one
repository, why not in all?
I'd add to that: the odds are that if someone is screwing things up,
it's better to have more eyes on what they're doing.
But what wins me over,
On 1/22/13 2:23 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 22/01/2013 13:27 , Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
I'm not really sure if that is needed. If we can trust someone in one
repository, why not in all?
I'd add to that: the odds are that if someone is screwing things up,
it's better to have more
Hi Cyril,
1) I'm wondering why in progressive mode, does the spec say: partial Blob
data is an ArrayBuffer [ TypedArrays ] object consisting of the bytes loaded so
far . Why isn't it the bytes loaded since the previous progress event?
AR: It is always a new ArrayBuffer. The phraseology so
Hi Arun,
Le 22/01/2013 15:04, Arun Ranganathan a écrit :
Hi Cyril,
1) I'm wondering why in progressive mode, does the spec say:
||partial Blob data is an |ArrayBuffer|[TypedArrays
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#TypedArrays] object
consisting of the bytes|loaded|so far. Why isn't it
On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote:
Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly at
the technology level.
My understanding is that we don't have to care about spec-IP issues in
test suites
On 1/22/13 4:45 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
On 22/01/2013 14:48 , Tobie Langel wrote:
Yes, I guess what I want to avoid at all costs is the split per WG which
has boundaries that partially happen at IP level, rather than strictly
at
the technology level.
My understanding is that we
On 22/01/2013 17:14 , Tobie Langel wrote:
On 1/22/13 4:45 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org wrote:
You *do* need to make the proper commitments for the test suite, but
those are much lighter and can easily be extended to all.
Moving to GitHub should be an excellent occasion to revisit how the CLA
Very much appreciated. I've added this and the other 4 items from Ms2ger to
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17649 for tracking purposes,
since there was some overlap with items in there already.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
From the
Fred
I object to this being a resolution, since I never saw a formal Call for
Consensus sent to the WebIntents list. I saw an informal discussion of ideas
and an offer to provide proposals, not a proposal to change where standards are
delivered. I know the DAP WG has not had a chance to
I love the idea of moving to github.
The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view,
could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for
people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email for a PR
initiatedfor any spec).
Not saying it is
On 1/23/13 12:48 AM, Julian Aubourg j...@ubourg.net wrote:
I love the idea of moving to github.
The one-repo idea, while much simpler from a maintenance point of view,
could easily be a burden on users that subscribe to it. Even more so for
people who can merge PRs (and thus will receive an email
20 matches
Mail list logo
