On 9/25/10 7:29 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent.
Support!
-ArtB
I support this publication.
Regards,
Maciej
On Sep 25, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dom
I support this.
/ Jonas
On Sunday, September 26, 2010, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:29:04 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec base
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:29:04 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's
Draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Opera sup
Support.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
&
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
(The spec does not yet include a W3C stylesheet but Anne will fix that
befor
://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/web-dom-core
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:12:27 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:47:01 +0200, Jonas Sicking
>>> wrote:
For what it's worth, we still thro
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:12:27 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:47:01 +0200, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
For what it's worth, we still throw WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR in a few places
in gecko:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-cent
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:47:01 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth, we still throw WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR in a few places in
>> gecko:
>>
>>
>> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR&find=\.cpp
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:47:01 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
For what it's worth, we still throw WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR in a few places
in gecko:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR&find=\.cpp
Some, but likely not all, of these can and should probably be removed.
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:29:57 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>
>>> This alternative would not throw HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR as much (maybe
>>> even not at all)
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this p
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:29:57 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
This alternative would not throw HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR as much (maybe
even not at all)
Can you elaborate on this particular part? I've assumed in HTML5 that,
e.g., text nodes can never have El
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> This alternative would not throw HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR as much (maybe even not
> at all)
Can you elaborate on this particular part? I've assumed in HTML5 that,
e.g., text nodes can never have Element children; is that a false
assumption now?
--
L focussed), or other?
My idea is to leave DOM Level 3 Core for existing Java implementations and
have Web DOM Core (encompassing both HTML and XML) for ECMAScript clients
and Java (and other) implementations that wish to match the browser APIs.
See the "Goals" section in the d
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
A new version of DOM Core as an alternative to DOM Level 3 Core mostly
for web browsers has been talked about a lot and even drafted to some
extent. I would like to run it to completion.
Looks good and should be easier to catch bugs between various APIs
having the DOM
.
The draft and tests are hosted on bitbucket.org:
http://bitbucket.org/ms2ger/web-dom-core
I put an HTML snapshot of the source document here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Sep/att-0001/Overview.src.html
The first 80% is more or less done. I would very much
Simon Pieters put together a draft of a "Web DOM Core" spec
some time ago but currently lacks the cycles to serve as the
primary owner/editor for it going forward.
http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core
To get an idea of the intended scope of the document, see the
current set of
Included below is feedback received on the WHATWG list for a proposed
extension to createElement(). Since this applies to all of DOM Core, I
haven't added it to HTML5, but I pass it on in case it is something that
would apply to Web DOM Core.
FWIW, personally what I would find
19 matches
Mail list logo
