https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25088
Bug ID: 25088
Summary: 'orientationchange' should fire on Window so that
there can be a event handler for it
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:59 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 15/03/2014 18:44 , Johannes Wilm wrote:
>> yes btw -- where should one go to lobby in favor of the editing spec? I
>> have been communicating with several other browser-based editor
>> projects, and there seems to be a general interest of more
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#originOfBlobURL
>>
>> LGTM. Assuming that UAs implement this, that makes Workers automaticall
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 2/13/14 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements
>>
>> Built-in elements need Type 4.
>
> Well, Chrome does not have Type 4, yet
On 3/17/14 12:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Well, Chrome does not have Type 4, yet is implementing parts of the
their elements using shadow DOM constructs.
What makes you say Chrome doesn't have Type 4?
They do in fact have it for the case in question, as far as I can tell
(inaccessible .sh
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/13/14 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> Also, Type 2 can be used for built-in elements
>
> Built-in elements need Type 4.
Well, Chrome does not have Type 4, yet is implementing parts of the
their elements using shadow DOM construc
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23346
Anne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25081
Bug ID: 25081
Summary: Make read operation really async
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#originOfBlobURL
> >
> > LGTM. Assuming that UAs implement this, that makes Workers automat
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#originOfBlobURL
>>
>> LGTM. Assuming that UAs implement this, that makes Workers automatically
>> support blob: URLs, too.
>
>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen
wrote:
> So, the story so far is that the spec has added something it labels
> "semi-trusted events" - that is an event triggered from a trusted event of a
> whitelisted type. The precedence here is popup blocking - browsers already
> have r
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24998
Anne changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#originOfBlobURL
>
> LGTM. Assuming that UAs implement this, that makes Workers automatically
> support blob: URLs, too.
I don't think this is the way we sh
On 15/03/2014 18:44 , Johannes Wilm wrote:
yes btw -- where should one go to lobby in favor of the editing spec? I
have been communicating with several other browser-based editor
projects, and there seems to be a general interest of more communication
with the browser creators and spec writers. C
14 matches
Mail list logo
