On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical
specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what
process *should* be is off topic
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
This is a formal warning.
I do not support the chairs in this. I stand by Ms2ger. He has not acted
inappropriately and his complaints are valid.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:50:35 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
... This is just plagiarism.
Ian, this accusation against colleagues of yours working in good faith is
offensive, and it is untrue. It is therefore inappropriate for this
mailing list.
I will repeat, since you may have
Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical
specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what
process *should* be is off topic here.
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:07:20 +0100, Jungkee Song jungk...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM,
On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical
specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what
process *should* be is off topic here.
I find it unfortunate that you try to cut off discussions
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Ms2ger wrote:
I object to this publication because of this change:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4
I agree. That change is offensive. It gives credit to dozens of people who
have done basically nothing productive at all, for work that a few of us
have spent
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here.
I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be
corresponding publication rules.
Art, Charles, Doug,
Can you help clarifying which links we
On 12/02/2012 12:07 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here.
I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be
corresponding publication rules.
Art,
On 12/1/12 3:34 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
I object to this publication because of this change:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4
For a couple of years now, if a spec proposed for publication in TR
includes a normative reference that hahas published as a TR, PLH has
insisted the
On 12/02/2012 01:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 12/1/12 3:34 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
I object to this publication because of this change:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4
For a couple of years now, if a spec proposed for publication in TR
includes a normative reference that hahas
can see exactly what is being
proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as
you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the
ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version.
(Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.)
We prepared a proposed TR
Editors to create a TR version
using the WD template so that everyone can see exactly what is being
proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as
you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the
ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version.
(Please
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to this publication because of this change:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4
pushed with a misleading commit message.
since you don't say
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to this
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On
I need to clarify one point: I don't mind W3C docs making informative
references to WHATWG docs. For example, I wouldn't mind a W3C doc making a
normative reference to a snapshot of a WHATWG doc that has been republished
in the W3C while making an informative reference to its living
counterpart in
On 2012-11-25 16:19, Ms2ger wrote:
On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec
using #ED as the basis.
Same objections as to the XHR WD.
From your XHR objection:
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to
for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as
you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the
ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version.
(Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.)
We prepared a proposed TR version at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file
. As
such, this is a CfC for this test suite:
http://w3c-test.org/webapps/SelectorsAPI/tests/approved/
With no negative feedback, this Call for Consensus passes and we resolve
to accept the test suite.
for the co-chairs
chaals
If you have any comments, please send to public-webapps by November 23
On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be
credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the WD.
Please put your proposed text in a version of the spec we can review and
send us the URL of
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I don't know what official would mean here. I just meant the intent that
is behind my (and Anne's, I believe) advocacy of open licensing for
specifications.
Yup.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM
On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be
credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the
WD.
On 11/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM
On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be
credited. If we make consensus, let me
willing to track the conformance of
such rules.
In the future, for these few specs where the ED's BP and/or SotD is
different than what is required for TR, it would make sense to ask the
Editors to create a TR version _before_ the CfC starts^1. And yes, my
expectation is TRs will give appropriate
to create a TR version
using the WD template so that everyone can see exactly what is being
proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as
you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the
ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version.
(Please use 6
Hi Lachlan,
Given the discussions about spec boilerplate, Status of this Document
section, etc., Ithink we need a PubReady TR version of the DOM spec
before this CfC can continue.As such, please create a TR version now and
reply with the URLso this CfC can proceed with the document WebApps
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM
On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
I suggest we put the following wordings for
as soon as
you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the
ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version.
(Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.)
We prepared a proposed TR version at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html
Thank you
This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec
using #ED as the basis.
Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support
On 11/25/2012 02:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is Call for Consensus to publish a Working Draft of the DOM spec
using #ED as the basis.
Please note Lachlan will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b
On 11/25/12 10:19 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote:
Same objections as to the XHR WD.
Are you talking about
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0542.html?
The DOM ED includes the following in the boilerplate:
[[
Living Standard:
http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/
]]
What (else)
will continue to edit the ED during this CfC period.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD;
and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
this e-mail by December 2
to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical
spec on whatwg.org.
I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid,
but why would it be necessary? (I
.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer
, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical
spec on whatwg.org.
I'm unfamiliar with the W3C
of
this spec using #Draft-CR as the basis.
Yandex supports publication.
cheers
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement to CR; and b) General Requirements for
Advancement on the Recommendation Track as defined in the Process
Le 25/11/2012 20:07, Kyle Huey a écrit :
Have you read Adam Barth's contributions to this discussion?
Sure, and I personally mostly agree with these points.
He has summarized the point well, I think. There is a difference
between what the license legally obligates one to do
I talked very
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote:
The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain
for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close
to no condition, not even credit.
I can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote:
The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain
for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close
to no condition, not even credit.
I
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote:
The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public
domain for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them
as the editor of the XMLHttpRequest Living Standard in
WHATWG which this version of the specification pursues convergence.
Jungkee
-Original Message-
From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu [mailto:kangh...@oupeng.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 2:44 AM
To: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: CfC: publish
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:38:35 +0400, Jungkee Song
jungkee.s...@samsung.com wrote:
I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be
credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing
the WD.
The proposed wording seems accurate enough to meet my I
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written
by me or copied from me seems
or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps
WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to
other, prior or variant versions.
To be clear, in
support of the contents of the
WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I
Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
own.
Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting
On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try
to pass off Anne's work as our own.
Or better yet, provide a canvas where Anne is able to do his work as part
of the WebApps WG.
--tobie
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work as our own.
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical
spec
on
whatwg.org.
I agree. The W3C
I would think that listing Anne as Editor or Former Editor and
listing Anne in an Acknowledgments paragraph should be entirely
consistent with all existing W3C practice.
But it's not consistent with that existing W3C practice to get all the text for
a spec from a document edited outside the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual
contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in the
context of participating in the W3C process, ...
It seems you are
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work as our own.
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship
obvious.
Perhaps Anne would be willing to suggest some text that he would find
appropriate?
+1, or perhaps Anne would like to object to this CfC no matter what?
Cheers,
Kenny
--
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com]
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work
as author in
indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by November 30 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
-Thanks, AB
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual
contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern
; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written
by me or copied from me seems disingenuous.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:04:54 +0100, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for Consensus to do so ...
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged
: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged
at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on
whatwg.org.
I agree. The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
work
Hi Editors, All,
If we want to publish a WD or LCWDin #TR before the EoY, given the
upcoming publishing blackout dates, the schedule and deadlines are:
* December 2 - deadline to start a (1-week) CfC
* December 9 - CfC end date
* December 11 - deadline for publication request
The RfR for the Selectors API Level 1 test suite passed WebApps' testing
group's review (see below), and according to the agreed
#Approvalprocess, this now means a group wide review should be done. As
such, this is a CfC for this test suite:
http://w3c-test.org/webapps/SelectorsAPI/tests
The comment period for the October 23 LCWD of Server-Event Events ended
yesterday. Since there were no comments submitted nor new bugs files,
this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of
this spec using #Draft-CR as the basis.
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's
for the CR will be the same as that used for the other
widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each test
case.
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement to CR; and b) General Requirements for
Advancement
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:13:53 +0200, wrote:
Hi,
Formally, this is a Call for Consensus to move Selectors API to CR (and
possibly direct to Proposed Recommendation - see below). Responses are
due by Friday 26 October, and while silence will be considered assent,
formal approval is preferred.
.
Meanwhile we don't have any actual dissent.
This CfC is therefore resolved to have passed, and we will request CR
publication for Widget Updates.
cheers
Chaals
The Exit Criteria for the CR will be the same as that used for the other
widget specs, namely that two or more implementations must pass each
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:13:53 +0200, wrote:
Formally, this is a Call for Consensus to move Selectors API to CR (and
possibly direct to Proposed Recommendation - see below). Responses are
due by Friday 26 October, and while silence will be considered assent,
formal approval is preferred.
consider this CfC as hereby amended to publish a new WD
- and NOT a LCWD.
-Thanks, AB
On 10/16/12 9:29 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
All - this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the File API spec http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/.
Note bug 17125 ([1] below
notes below bug 19554 ([2] below) is a related
feature request for HTML and he proposes the LC comment period be used
to gather input on that bug.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note the Process
Document states
- 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.
request for HTML and he proposes the LC comment period be used
to gather input on that bug.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note the Process
Document states the following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD
On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working
Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using
the following spec as the basis
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html.
This CfC satisfies
...@w3c.org; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA
Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12
On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working
Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so
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
] and [18653]) and
I will ask the person that prepares the spec for publication to fix
those bugs in the LC version.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for this LCWD. Note the Process
Document states the following regarding
/default/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision
to request advancement.
By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin
reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the group is on this spec at
the time of publication
of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the
following spec as the basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-
file/default/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision
to request advancement.
By publishing this FPWD, the group sends
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 1:21 PM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote:
Done,
May user agents apply additional restrictions on entering pointer
lock? [1] created and added to status section of specification.
Thanks Vincent.
Some FYIs for All regarding the process-related points ...
* Given WebApps' distributed and
.)
- additional references (I still need to update the respec biblio)
Yes, please do as this must be fixed before the FPWD is actually
published in /TR/. (Robin provided some related info in [1].)
I would like to request a CFC for FPWD publication, if there are no more
substantive comments
The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working Draft
of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the
following spec as the basis
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
On 9/27/12 8:26 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Lock using
the following document as the basis for the LC
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/tip/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
, using the following
spec as the basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision
to request advancement.
By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to begin
reviewing the document
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,
a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by October 10 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean
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
301 - 400 of 995 matches
Mail list logo
