- Original Message -
On 10/9/12 4:13 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
* File API - Arun can you get this spec ready for LC by October
15?
Yes.
ATM, File API has 8 open bugs [1].
I've rationalized these down to 2 bugs.
On 10/9/12 4:13 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
* File API - Arun can you get this spec ready for LC by October 15?
Yes.
ATM, File API has 8 open bugs [1]. Are you going to fix all of them by
October 15 or will you propose some set of
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
* File API - Arun can you get this spec ready for LC by October 15?
Yes.
-- A*
I've been toying a bit with the current chrome implementation of gamepads,
and been trying to make sense of how it would work for firefox.
There's a few observations I'd like to share:
- Being able to enumerate devices is very convenient. I don't think
Firefoxes implementation went that way
On 10/5/12 7:06 AM, ext Bryan Sullivan wrote:
- more info on serverProtocols
It still seems like the set of valid strings will need to be defined.
Perhaps at this point, it would be sufficient if a related Issue Block
was added. (I'll ask Mike to create a Bugzilla component for the spec.)
For those with threaded email clients, at Arthur's suggestion I've filed an
issue to track this topic.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0040.html.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:14 PM,
On 27/09/12 08:37, Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
* Pointer Lock - Vincent - what's the status of the
I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure criteria to
determine if pointerlock succeeds that are not outlined in the
specification. Firefox uses the fullscreen change event to determine
failure and chrome requires the pointer lock request to fail if not
resulting from a user
On 10/02/2012 11:55 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure criteria to
determine if pointerlock succeeds that are not outlined in the
specification. Firefox uses the fullscreen change event to determine failure
and chrome requires the pointer
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 10/02/2012 11:55 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure criteria
to determine if pointerlock succeeds that are not outlined in the
specification. Firefox uses the
I agree that pointer lock is quite useful outside of fullscreen, but
before attempting to codify that in the specification I would want buy
in from other browser vendors. I can appreciate an argument to remain
restricted to fullscreen.
Application developers can automatically escalate to
On 10/03/2012 12:59 AM, Florian Bösch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 10/02/2012 11:55 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
I'd like to point out that vendors are using additional failure
criteria to
Speaking from the point of view of a web developer having to use this
feature. It is quite painful having to perform an end-run about failure
modes that are unspecified, undocumented and a moving target. In my
understanding, this is precisely the intent of a specification, to avoid
such
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
Speaking from the point of view of a web developer having to use this
feature. It is quite painful having to perform an end-run about failure modes
that are unspecified, undocumented and a moving target. In my understanding,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
* Gamepad - Scott, Ted - what's the status of the spec and its
implementation?
We probably need to discuss a bit more, but I think the spec is pretty
close to a first version. The one large issue that we haven't
On 27 sep 2012 at 05:51:51, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, Art. I've responded below. I will work on a new
draft to address as many of your comments as I can.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | ATT
+1-425-580-6514
Arthur Barstow wrote on September 26, 2012
The upcoming TPAC meeting week (Oct 29-Nov2) provides an opportunity for
joint WG meetings and lots of informal information sharing. As such, it
can be useful to make new publications before TPAC.
There is a publication blackout period around TPAC and Oct 23 is the
last day to request
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The upcoming TPAC meeting week (Oct 29-Nov2) provides an opportunity for
joint WG meetings and lots of informal information sharing. As such, it can
be useful to make new publications before TPAC.
There is a
On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
* Pointer Lock - Vincent - what's the status of the spec and its implementation?
Firefox 14 and Chrome 22 shipped Pointer Lock implementations to
stable channel users
-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:27 AM
To: public-weba...@w3c.org
Subject: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct
15
The upcoming TPAC meeting week (Oct 29-Nov2) provides an opportunity for
joint WG meetings
On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft [1], and
would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't received any
substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that it could be in good
shape for
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
* Pointer Lock - Vincent - what's the status of the spec and its
implementation?
Firefox
, September 26, 2012 11:59 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-weba...@w3c.org
Subject: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing
specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]
On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
We've previously called for any comments
23 matches
Mail list logo
