:59 AM:
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 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
publication before TPAC. Given our 1-week CfC for
new publications, weekends, etc., Oct 15 is the last day to start a CfC
to publish a document before TPAC. However, a lot of groups publish
documents at this time so starting the CfC earlier is highly recommended.
Scanning [PubStatus], here are some
.
There is a publication blackout period around TPAC and Oct 23 is the last
day to request publication before TPAC. Given our 1-week CfC for new
publications, weekends, etc., Oct 15 is the last day to start a CfC to
publish a document before TPAC. However, a lot of groups publish documents at
this time so
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
(Eduardo) as co-editor
and simplification / better alignment with proposals for B2G / Firefox OS, I
believe we are in shape for FPWD now. So if I could request a CFC for
publication as FPWD before Oct 15, that would be our preference.
Alternatively we can put this on the agenda for TPAC
for publication. With the addition of Telefonica (Eduardo) as co-editor
and simplification / better alignment with proposals for B2G / Firefox OS, I
believe we are in shape for FPWD now. So if I could request a CFC for
publication as FPWD before Oct 15, that would be our preference.
Alternatively we can
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
/raw-file/tip/index.html.
Sorry I missed the deadline; I lost track of this CfC. Given the
standing W3C policy against forking specifications, I object to
publishing this fork.
Ms2ger
Hi Ms2ger,
the chairs and team have discussed your objection.
It is procedural, not technical.
The W3C
using the following ED as the
basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html.
Sorry I missed the deadline; I lost track of this CfC. Given the
standing W3C policy against forking specifications, I object to
publishing this fork.
Ms2ger
Hi Ms2ger,
the chairs and team have discussed
of this CfC. Given the
standing W3C policy against forking specifications, I object to
publishing this fork.
Ms2ger
This is a Call for Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft of
the DOM Parsing and Serialization spec using the following ED as the
basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
Please send all comments regarding this CfC to the public-webapps@w3.orgmail
list by August 28 and note silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal. If you support this CfC, a positive response
[ cross-posting to www-dom and public-webapps - please reply just to
www-dom ]
All - Travis has the D3E spec down to Zarro Bugs [1] and as such this is
a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a LCWD of the spec
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html.
This CfC
a new title of Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) -
Packaging and XML Configuration (Second Edition).
Please send all comments regarding this CfC to the public-webapps@w3.org
mail list by August 28 and note silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal. If you support this CfC, a positive
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:20:34 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Marcos would like to publish a Proposed Edited Recommendation [PER] of
the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spec [REC] to incorporate the
spec's errata and this is a Call for Consensus to do so.
I
in the [Proposed-PER] (see [Diff])
and it includes a new title of Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and
XML Configuration (Second Edition).
Please send all comments regarding this CfC to the public-webapps@w3.org mail
list by August 28 and note silence will be considered as agreement
, Marcos,
Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we have
consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the spec
that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is we start a
new CfC.
Works for me. Marcos, should I just send you
...@nokia.com) wrote:
Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show
we have consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of
the spec that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is
we start a new CfC.
Works for me. Marcos, should I just send you
Chaals, Marcos,
Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we
have consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the
spec that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation is we
start a new CfC.
-Thanks, AB
On 7/26/12 9:52 AM, ext Chaals
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:52:26 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Chaals, Marcos,
Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we
have consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the
spec that satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my
On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Chaals, Marcos,
Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we have
consensus. As such, after you two have agreed on a version of the spec that
satisfies all of Chaals' concerns, my recommendation
On 9 Aug 2012, at 13:10, Chaals McCathieNevile w...@chaals.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:52:26 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Chaals, Marcos,
Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we have
consensus. As such, after you two have agreed
fragmentation with the latest ED, the
Draft LC also includes [r1.271] (adds a Warning) and [r1.273]
(editorial). The Draft LC also includes the bug fixes noted in the July
18 CfC to publish a CR of this spec [2].
[Bugz] shows five open bugs: 12510, 15209, 15210, 15829 and 17264 and
the Draft
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)
wrote:
Marcos would like to publish a
a new title of Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) -
Packaging and XML Configuration.
Please send all comments regarding this CfC to the public-webapps@w3.org
mail list by August 8 and note silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal. If you support this CfC, a positive response
comments regarding this CfC to the public-webapps@w3.org
mail list by August 8 and note silence will be considered as agreement
with the proposal. If you support this CfC, a positive response is
preferred and encouraged.
-Thanks, AB
[PER] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html
On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
(mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)
wrote:
Marcos would like to publish a Proposed Edited Recommendation [PER] of
the Widget Packaging and XML
On 7/12/12 8:06 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-12 13:47, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I agree with Hixie that ideally the fix would apply to the original
source rather than 1-off versions in dev.w3. However, if that isn't
worked out, I will apply Julian's patch to the CR version.
Sounds
On 2012-07-19 17:30, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 7/12/12 8:06 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-12 13:47, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I agree with Hixie that ideally the fix would apply to the original
source rather than 1-off versions in dev.w3. However, if that isn't
worked out, I will apply
On 7/11/12 7:52 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's draft, and
the diffs. ...
..and the diff was
On 2012-07-12 13:47, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 7/11/12 7:52 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
It almost seems to me that nobody cares over here what the W3C document
actually says, as there is that other more helpful version. In which
case I wonder why it's published at all?
Patent policy.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E
for this as was done for the LC
* Other bugs to remain open for v.next: 15209, 15210, 17073, 17264, 17685
* The CR's exit criteria be identical to the December 2011 CR.
This CfC satisfies: a) the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement to CR; and b) General Requirements
On 2012-07-11 15:11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Yesterday Hixie closed several of the Web Sockets bugs mentioned in the
e-mail below and he updated others. I think this now provides a basis to
determine if we have consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation. As
such, this is a Call for Consensus
Art wrote:
As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate
Recommendation of Web Sockets.
Ship it! :)
Ted
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.comwrote:
Art wrote:
As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate
Recommendation of Web Sockets.
Ship it! :)
+1
On 2012-07-11 20:25, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-11 15:44, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-11 15:11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Yesterday Hixie closed several of the Web Sockets bugs mentioned in the
e-mail below and he updated others. I think this now provides a basis to
determine if we have
Arthur Barstow:
2. The patch [3] to remove the TreatNonCallableAsNull qualifier for some
attributes. If anyone considers this change as substantive, please speak
up. Cameron - what's your opinion on this?
[TreatNonCallableAsNull] attribute Function? should be equivalent to
attribute
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's draft, and
the diffs. ...
..and the diff was reversed; new version attached.
On 2012-07-12 01:52, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's draft, and
the diffs. ...
..and the diff was
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
My interest was to demonstrate the problem, and to fix it for the pending
publication. In the process of it, I also discovered that one term used in
the spec is undefined.
Except as you can see in the more helpful
On 2012-07-12 07:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
My interest was to demonstrate the problem, and to fix it for the pending
publication. In the process of it, I also discovered that one term used in
the spec is undefined.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, fantasai
fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
This second part is a fragment, not a sentence, so I'd suggest rewording,
maybe like this
| ... for an element in the top layer's stack (such as a fullscreen
element).
But otherwise it seems fine to me.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:35:46 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Hi All - Arun is back to actively editing the File API spec and this is
a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of the spec. Please note that
Arun will be committing some changes during this CfC
a new LCWD of this spec using the
following document as the basis
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/.
If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
public-webapps@w3.org by June 25 at the latest. Positive response is
preferred and encouraged and silence
On 2012-06-18 15:41, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Lachlan would like to publish a new Working Draft of the Selectors API
Level 2 spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so using the
following Editor's Draft as the basis
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/.
If you have any comments or
Hi All - Arun is back to actively editing the File API spec and this is
a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of the spec. Please note that
Arun will be committing some changes during this CfC and that the ED
does not yet use the WD template:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
Also, to be precise, you're not actually clear about what happens to e.g.
'color', which is an inheritable property. If it doesn't inherit from
anything, what is it's value? This is not defined, because currently in
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM, fantasai
fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
Hm, so if I scroll with a fullscreened dialog, the dialog scrolls
out of view, but if I scroll with a fullscreened img, the image
stays in view?
If dialog itself was fullscreened it would be fixed I think. If it
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai
fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
You could just work in the explanation I sent in
http://www.w3.org/mid/4fc64100.3060...@inkedblade.net
Added a note.
The reason this is not very elaborated is that this really belongs in
a CSS specification that
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Sylvain Galineau
sylva...@microsoft.com wrote:
I don't think people who don't live in WHATWG/W3C mailing lists
and/or make browsers for a living can read a document like this one -
or, say, CORS - and hope to figure
out what problems they are/aren't trying to
On 6/21/12 5:16 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai
fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
You could just work in the explanation I sent in
http://www.w3.org/mid/4fc64100.3060...@inkedblade.net
Added a note.
The reason this is not very elaborated is
Le 21/06/12 13:18, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Daniel, Fantasai - please confirm whether or not Anne's latest changes
([1],[2]) address the #2 issue ([3]) that is blocking FPWD:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#::backdrop-pseudo-element
Fine by me. Thanks.
/Daniel
[Anne van Kesteren:]
I don't really see how this is a helpful contribution. I fully realize
everything is not as good as it can be (and you know I do), but we have
limited resources and many problems worth solving. If you know someone
that can do a better job on CORS or Fullscreen please
On 06/21/2012 04:18 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 6/21/12 5:16 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai
fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
You could just work in the explanation I sent in
http://www.w3.org/mid/4fc64100.3060...@inkedblade.net
Added a note.
On 06/21/2012 02:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Why? It has no children.
Sure, that's fine. Might make it explicit, but really the issue is what
element does the ::backdrop element inherit from?
Clarified.
That's an interesting approach, you probably want someone familiar with
the style
On Jun 19, 2012, at 13:29 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
Dave - it appears this CfC passed. Unless I hear otherwise from you, I will
assume DAP will take care of the Transition Request and Publication Request.
Yes, we'll take care of that. The draft will be published under joint ownership
between
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:57:02 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Lachlan has made some changes to the Selectors API Level 1 spec (last
published as a CR) and we consider the changes sufficient to require the
spec be published as a Working Draft (see the [1] thread). As such,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
On 06/01/2012 05:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net
wrote:
Though it seems likely that 'fixed' is required here, no?
The top layer concept is
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
It looks like you missed #2.
I think ::backdrop is clear enough. Not entirely sure what you would
expect seeing there more than what it already says.
--
Anne — Opera Software
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Le 19/06/12 09:41, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
It looks like you missed #2.
I think ::backdrop is clear enough. Not entirely sure what you would
expect seeing there more than what it already says.
Well, the
Le 18/06/12 13:09, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're
included public-webapps and public-device-apis on this CfC since Web
Intents is a joint-deliverable [2][3] between these two groups.
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
On 6/19/12 3:52 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 18/06/12 13:09, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the
FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during
Le 19/06/12 14:10, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Given this interpretation - and of course, please correct it if it is
wrong - it appears the only remaining FPWD Showstopper is #2 in the
first set of comments. Is that correct?
Yes.
/Daniel
On 6/19/12 3:49 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 19/06/12 09:41, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM,
fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
It looks like you missed #2.
I think ::backdrop is clear enough. Not entirely sure what you would
expect seeing there
On 06/19/2012 12:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
On 06/01/2012 05:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net
wrote:
Though it seems likely that 'fixed'
On 06/19/2012 12:49 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 19/06/12 09:41, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
It looks like you missed #2.
I think ::backdrop is clear enough. Not entirely sure what you would
expect seeing there
Le 19/06/12 22:48, fantasai a écrit :
You could just work in the explanation I sent in
http://www.w3.org/mid/4fc64100.3060...@inkedblade.net
e.g.
| Each element in the top layer's stack has a ::backdrop pseudo-element,
| which can be styled to create a backdrop that hides the underlying
|
[Daniel Glazman:]
That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It can
sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a new
syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from a functional point of
view before explaining how it works.
To the
On 6/20/12 12:05 AM, Sylvain Galineau sylva...@microsoft.com wrote:
[Daniel Glazman:]
That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It
can
sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a
new
syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're going to review the bits of this document
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 June 25 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement
document as the basis
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/.
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:
[[
http://www.w3
Sorry, looks like I accidentally dropped webapps from the CC list. Sending
again...
On 06/01/2012 05:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasaifantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
Though it seems likely that 'fixed' is required here, no?
The top layer concept
On 06/18/2012 04:09 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 5/30/12 10:38 AM, ext Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're
Having seen no negative responses to the Is the Quota Management API
spec ready for FPWD? thread [1], this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to
publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Quota Management API
using the following ED as the basis of the FPWD:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/quota/raw
On 6/6/12 2:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Having seen no negative responses to the Is the Quota Management API
spec ready for FPWD? thread [1], this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to
publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Quota Management API
using the following ED
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I assumed we were talking about the stacking context of the root element,
not just the one that the dialog's parent is in. Otherwise there
wouldn't need to be anything about how the parent's stacking context has
no effect, etc.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net wrote:
On 05/30/2012 07:38 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
1. position: center in section 6.1 refers to an Editor's Draft that is
not actively discussed at this time. Only normative references
should be made to CSS specs or the
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:02:43 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
| If its specified 'position' is 'static', it computes to 'absolute'.
What if position is not specified?
Everything's specified.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specified-value
Other comments:
#
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug oyvi...@opera.com wrote:
4. layer and layer 10 in section 6.1 are unclear. Layer is used
nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be clarified.
This section also seems to assume that the list in CSS 2.1's appendix E is
for the
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
Everything's specified.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specified-value
Great!
Do you mean object-fit? I guess it would be nice for images to be
object-fit:contain in fullscreen. (Videos already are.)
Yup,
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug oyvi...@opera.com wrote:
4. layer and layer 10 in section 6.1 are unclear. Layer is used
nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be
clarified.
This section also seems to
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasai fantasai.li...@inkedblade.net
wrote:
| If its specified 'position' is 'static', it computes to 'absolute'.
What if position is not specified?
All elements have specified
use a W3C publishing
template):
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
I included www-style on this CfC since WebApps' new charter [2]
identifies this spec as a collaboration point with the CSS group.
Actually, WebApps' charter identifies this spec as a joint deliverable
On 05/30/2012 07:38 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
Le 30/05/12 14:43, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Chris, Daniel, Peter - when will the CSS WG make a decision on the FPWD?
We'll try to make one today during our weekly conf-call. Please note
that we're going to review the bits of this document falling
On 05/30/2012 08:47 AM, fantasai wrote:
Other comments:
Oh, also, you need a reference to CSS2.1, otherwise your rendering section
isn't defined. :)
~fantasai
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:38:30 +0200, Daniel Glazman
daniel.glaz...@disruptive-innovations.com wrote:
4. layer and layer 10 in section 6.1 are unclear. Layer is used
nowhere in CSS references used in this spec. This must be clarified.
This section also seems to assume that the list 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 June 4 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
-Thanks
on this CfC since Web
Intents is a joint-deliverable [2][3] between these two groups.
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; it does not necessarily mean
, please reply
to this e-mail by June 4 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
-Thanks, ArtB
.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
I included www-style on this CfC since WebApps' new charter [2]
identifies this spec as a collaboration point with the CSS group.
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement.
By publishing
consensus of the group is to publish the LC based on the ED as is.
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:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2005
the following ED as the basis
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html (it has not
yet been made TR pub ready).
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
for LCWD [Bugz]. Bug 1404 is now
closed so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of IDB using the
following ED as the basis
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html (it has not yet
been made TR pub ready).
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
been made TR pub ready).
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:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html
for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
publication and this a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/explainer/index.html
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement.
By publishing this FPWD
Microsoft supports this CfC.
On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:20 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
As discussed during WebApps' May 1 f2f meeting [2], the Shadow DOM spec
is ready for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) publication and this a
Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg
401 - 500 of 995 matches
Mail list logo
