Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

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 the

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

efault/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

CfC: publish LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline Oct 18

[16070] 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 t

Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

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 which

Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

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*

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

on't oppose this FPWD. > > But I can't say with certainty at this time that this is an API that > we're planning on implementing. > > / Jonas > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote: >> The Push API Editors would like to publish a

[admin] Some points about WebApps' Work Mode [Was: Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Pointer Lock; deadline Oct 4]

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 asy

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

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 wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Florian Bösch wrote: >

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

pec 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". > >

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Pointer Lock; deadline Oct 4

ote: >> >> 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 "rec

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Pointer Lock; deadline Oct 4

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 "re

CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

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 "re

Re: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

spec.) - 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 commen

Re: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

- example code and flow in the Framework section - general editorial cleanup I would like to request a CFC for FPWD publication, if there are no more substantive comments on the updated version. We look forward to a good discussion on this API during TPAC and would like that to occur on a FPWD basi

CfC: publish WD of Shadow DOM; deadline Oct 10

hing 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 t

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

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, >

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

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 incompatibi

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

On 10/03/2012 12:59 AM, Florian Bösch wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Olli Pettay 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 determine if pointerlock succee

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

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 requestin

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Olli Pettay 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 determine if pointerlock succeeds that are not outlined in the >> specification. Firefox uses the fullscreen change

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

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 lo

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

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 i

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

On 27/09/12 08:37, Vincent Scheib wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: * Pointer Lock - Vincent - what's the status of the spec and its implementation? Firefox 14 a

Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Arthur Barstow 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 tackled yet is how button

CfC: publish LCWD of Pointer Lock; deadline Oct 4

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 decision to request advan

RE: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

hur Barstow wrote on September 26, 2012 11:59 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

RE: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

t; Sent: Wednesday, 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:

Re: [pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow >> wrote: >>> >>> * Pointer Lock - Vincent - what's the status of the spec and its >>> implementation? >> >> Firefox 14 and Chrome 22 shipp

[push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

shape 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. Alternativ

RE: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

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 put this on the agenda fo

[pointerlock] Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. LC ready? [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

On 9/26/12 11:46 AM, ext Vincent Scheib wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Arthur Barstow 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 recently. (Check out this

Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

e 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 docu

[admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

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 starting the CfC earlier is highly recommended. Scanning [PubStatus], her

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline Sept 11

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 discusse

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline Sept 11

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 Proce

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline Sept 11

track of this CfC. Given the standing W3C policy against forking specifications, I object to publishing this fork. Ms2ger

CfC: publish FPWD of DOM Parsing and Serialization; deadline Sept 11

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

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of WebSocket API; deadline September 7

I created as a Draft CR [CR-Draft]. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of WebSocket API using [CR-Draft] as the basis (see [Diff] for a difference between [LCWD] and [CR-Draft]). As noted in the CfC to publish the LCWD [CfC-LCWD], bugs [15209], [15210

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 28

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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 is > p

CfC: publish LCWD of DOM 3 Events; deadline August 31

[ 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>

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 28

The [Errata] has already been reflected 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.or

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 28

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:20:34 +0200, Arthur Barstow 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 support (as an individual

CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 28

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 with the proposal. I

Re: [widgets] P&C ready for pub - Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

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 a snippet for refe

[widgets] P&C ready for pub - Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

> > > 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 recommenda

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

On 9 Aug 2012, at 13:10, "Chaals McCathieNevile" wrote: > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:52:26 +0200, Arthur Barstow > wrote: > >> Chaals, Marcos, >> >> Based on this discussion, I concluded this CfC has failed to show we have >> consensus. As such, af

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:52, Arthur Barstow 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 recommen

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:52:26 +0200, Arthur Barstow 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

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

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 C

CfC: publish LCWD of WebSocket API; deadline August 6

]), to reduce 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

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:17:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)> wrote: > Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER] > o

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 19:02, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow (mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com)> > wrote: > > > Marcos would like to publish a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" [PER] of > > the Widget Packaging and XML Configuration spe

Re: CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

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 is preferred and encouraged. -Thanks, AB [PER] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051

CfC: publish Widgets P&C as a "Proposed Edited Recommendation"; deadline August 8

and it includes 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 Cf

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 Ju

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 goo

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 draf

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 re

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

On 2012-07-12 07:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Julian Reschke 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 se

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Julian Reschke 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 version of the specifi

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 reve

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 EventHa

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote: > Art wrote: > > > As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate > > Recommendation of Web Sockets. > > Ship it! :) > +1

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

Art wrote: > As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate > Recommendation of Web Sockets. Ship it! :) Ted

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

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 t

CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

s 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; an

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, fantasai 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. Addressed. -- http://anne

Re: CfC: publish new WD of File API; deadline July 3

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:35:46 +0200, Arthur Barstow 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 and that the ED does not yet use

CfC: publish new WD of File API; deadline July 3

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/File

Re: CfC: publish a LCWD of Selectors API Level 1; deadline June 25

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 w

Re: CfC: publish WD of Selectors API Level 2; deadline June 25

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 . If you have any comments or co

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:14 PM, fantasai 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 > CSS every element has a p

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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 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 el

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

[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 plea

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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: Fine by me. Thanks.

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On 6/21/12 5:16 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai 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 CS

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Sylvain Galineau 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 solve. (I'm not sur

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai 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 defines the layout box model

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM, fantasai wrote: > Hm, so if I scroll with a fullscreened , the dialog scrolls > out of view, but if I scroll with a fullscreened , the image > stays in view? If itself was fullscreened it would be fixed I think. If it was a descendant it would not. I'm not compl

Re: CfC: Publish FPWD of Web Intents spec; deadline June 12

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 ownersh

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On 6/20/12 12:05 AM, "Sylvain Galineau" 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 a fun

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

[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. > T

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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 | docume

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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, fantasai 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.

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On 06/19/2012 12:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM, fantasai wrote: On 06/01/2012 05:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasai wrote: Though it seems likely that 'fixed' is required here, no? The top layer concept is also used

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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, fantasai 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.

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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.

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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 ou

Re: CfC: Publish FPWD of Web Intents spec; deadline June 12

On 5/29/12 2:45 PM, ext James Hawkins wrote: Dave Raggett (d...@w3.org) made a call [1] on April 10 to publish a first public working draft, and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following document as the basis: I included public-webapps and public-device-apis on this CfC since

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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 goin

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

Le 19/06/12 09:41, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, fantasai 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 spec says how it's named, where

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM, fantasai wrote: > On 06/01/2012 05:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, fantasai >>  wrote: >>> Though it seems likely that 'fixed' is required here, no? >> >> The top layer concept is also used by HTML for its  element. > > This resp

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, fantasai 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/ http://www.opera.com/

Re: CfC: publish a LCWD of Selectors API Level 1; deadline June 25

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:57:02 +0200, Arthur Barstow 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, this is a Call for

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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 go

Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Fullscreen spec; deadline May 24

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, fantasai wrote: Though it seems likely that 'fixed' is required here, no? The top layer concept is also used by HTML for its

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >