https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27496
Bug ID: 27496
Summary: [Explainer]: mispell on inherifance
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/1/14, 1:49 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
I believe so; this will give many specs a baseline WebIDL document to point
to in their references at the very least. Many specs don't rely on the more
advanced feature set being defined in WebIDL Second
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Yves Lafon yla...@w3.org wrote:
Another option would be to define only the syntax and leave the bindings to
v2 only, but it wouldn't help much for testing.
Well we don't want to test something known to be wrong (e.g.
sequence). And we want to retain the ability
On 12/02/2014 06:54 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
If the document doesn't meet pubrules, that will cause a delay as
Sam and I deal with it.
I'm new to being a W3C Editor, but I did manage to find:
http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
I made a number of fixes:
On 12/3/14 10:42 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On 12/02/2014 06:54 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
I'm new to being a W3C Editor, but I did manage to find:
http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
Besides the above, the following which includes links to the various
validators:
On 12/3/14, 6:02 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
Pretty much like refactoring XHR using Fetch or not. Most
implementations will most probably move to the latest version, but the
external interface will be the same.
External interface being the IDL syntax in this case, not the
resulting web-exposed
On 12/03/2014 10:57 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/3/14 10:42 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On 12/02/2014 06:54 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
I'm new to being a W3C Editor, but I did manage to find:
http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules
Besides the above, the following which includes links to the
On 12/03/2014 11:10 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/3/14, 6:02 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
Pretty much like refactoring XHR using Fetch or not. Most
implementations will most probably move to the latest version, but the
external interface will be the same.
External interface being the IDL syntax in
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net]
Another way to phrase this question: what would the CR exit criteria be for
such a WebIDL v1? The reason why I bring this up is that if they are too low
to be meaningful, that brings into the question whether or not this exercise
is
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27511
Bug ID: 27511
Summary: [Shadow]: Six node trees in the diagram but
description says seven
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
10 matches
Mail list logo
