On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Julian Reschke
>> wrote:
>>> Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Yeah, you are right. I guess we get so used to having these crappy
retro
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Julian Reschke
> wrote:
>> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Yeah, you are right. I guess we get so used to having these crappy
>>> retrospective APIs around that one forgets that things could be done
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> Yeah, you are right. I guess we get so used to having these crappy
>> retrospective APIs around that one forgets that things could be done
>> in better ways - thankfully decent frameworks have been built a
Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Yeah, you are right. I guess we get so used to having these crappy
retrospective APIs around that one forgets that things could be done
in better ways - thankfully decent frameworks have been built around
them to make these things usable.
...
Maybe that could be a less
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>>>
OK, so is the conclusion that XHR is implementable only in H
n perfecting its
dependencies.
Regards,
Maciej
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:14 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Boris Zbarsky; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
As Ian already has me
to block progress on perfecting its
> dependencies.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:14 PM
>> To: Klotz, Leigh
>> Cc: Boris Zbars
Boris Zbarsky; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>
> We certainly don't want to block progress, and since there appears to
> be no technical barrier to our request (merely time), I believe the
> For
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>
> We certainly don't want to block progress, and since there appears to be
> no technical barrier to our request (merely time), I believe the Forms
> WG would be pleased with a result of our comment if the result were that
> the WebApps WG agreed to ad
nd hope for a
successful resolution.
Thank you,
Leigh.
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:41 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Jonas Sicking; Boris Zbarsky; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms
PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Boris Zbarsky; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
As Ian already has mentioned. No one is disputing that most of these
things should be factored out of the HTML5 spec. But so far no one
has stepped up to that task. Until someon
On Dec 17, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 12/17/09 2:22 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. Surely then this ought to be
fixed with an IETF or W3C document describing this fact
After some pushback, there is in fact such a document being worked
on. It's not
than HTML5 for
> reference.
>
> Leigh.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:38 PM
> To: Klotz, Leigh
> Cc: WebApps WG; Forms WG
> Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
>
> On
is Zbarsky; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
As Ian already has mentioned. No one is disputing that most of these things
should be factored out of the HTML5 spec. But so far no one has stepped up to
that task. Until someone does we'll have to live with t
[mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On 12/17/09 2:22 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. Surely then this ought to be fixed
> with an IETF
On 12/17/09 2:22 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. Surely then this ought to be fixed with an
IETF or W3C document describing this fact
After some pushback, there is in fact such a document being worked on.
It's not quite far enough to reference normatively last I chec
Klotz, Leigh
Cc: WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On 12/17/09 2:10 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> I'd be surprised if some of these aren't terms already defined elsewhere.
> "URL" for example, is surely not given a different definiti
On 12/17/09 2:10 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
I'd be surprised if some of these aren't terms already defined elsewhere.
"URL" for example, is surely not given a different definition in HTML5 from the
definition in RFC 3986.
As it happens, it is. There are various strings that are defined to not
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:33 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Henri Sivonen; Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Thu, Dec 17
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> Jonas,
> I'm not sure how the dependency is specified in the XHR draft. Can you point
> me to it? The word "event loop" doesn't appear.
The term "queue a task" is defined in HTML5, and uses the event loop.
/ Jonas
n; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
...
Though I just realized that I'm not sure all dependencies can be solved this
way. How would you for example break the dependency on the event loop,
currently only specified in the HTML5 spec (but implemented in
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:54 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Henri Sivonen; Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
...
> And then go on to c
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> From: Anne van Kesteren opera.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [XHR] LC comments from the XForms Working Group
>>> Date: 2009-10-08 15:31:27 GMT
>>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:24:48 +0200, Boris Zbarsky mit.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Anne van
>> From: Anne van Kesteren opera.com>
>> Subject: Re: [XHR] LC comments from the XForms Working Group
>> Date: 2009-10-08 15:31:27 GMT
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:24:48 +0200, Boris Zbarsky mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> >> It would change the conformance criter
M
> To: Klotz, Leigh
> Cc: Henri Sivonen; Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
> Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
>
> ...
>
> I don't think I understand your suggested changes. As long as the concepts
> that XHR uses are only defined in
Henri Sivonen; Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
> Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Klotz, Leigh
> > wrote: If XHR is wholly dependent on
> > HTML5 then it should either be moved into the HTML5
>
Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Klotz, Leigh
> wrote: If XHR is wholly dependent on
> HTML5 then it should either be moved into the HTML5
> recommendation-track document, or renamed "XHR for HTML5." Ian
> has made a point t
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> If XHR is wholly dependent on HTML5 then it should either be moved into the
> HTML5 recommendation-track document, or renamed "XHR for HTML5." Ian has
> made a point that modularizing HTML5 itself is a large task; it's not clear
> that th
c: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Dec 16, 2009, at 21:47, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that the main issue is dependency of the XHR document on
> concepts where "HTML5 is the only specification that def
On Dec 16, 2009, at 21:47, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that the main issue is dependency of the XHR document on
> concepts where "HTML5 is the only specification that defines several core
> concepts of the Web platform architecture, such as event loops, event handler
> attributes,
Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> > >
> > > Therefore, even in the light of the changes in details I've cited
> > > (and your kind c
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> > >
> > > Therefore, even in the light of the changes in details I've cited
> > > (and your kind corrections for my errors and outdated imformation),
> > > our request that you abstract out the dependencies on HTML5 into a
> > > separate document (perha
cc]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:04 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: Ian Hickson; Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
Note that just referring to a few specific concepts defined in HTML5 does not
force anyone to implement the rest of HT
> we pick up again.
> Happy Holidays, Ian, Anne, and all.
>
> Leigh.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:54 AM
> To: Klotz, Leigh
> Cc: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
> Subject: RE: XMLH
c: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>
> Therefore, even in the light of the changes in details I've cited (and
> your kind corrections for my errors and outdated imformation), our
&
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
>
> Therefore, even in the light of the changes in details I've cited (and
> your kind corrections for my errors and outdated imformation), our
> request that you abstract out the dependencies on HTML5 into a separate
> document (perhaps part of the HTML5
riginal Message-
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:54 AM
To: Klotz, Leigh; WebApps WG
Cc: Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:46:59 +0100, Klotz, Leigh
wrote:
> This comment on XMLHttpRequ
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:46:59 +0100, Klotz, Leigh
wrote:
This comment on XMLHttpRequest [1] is from the Forms WG.
A standalone W3C Recommendation-track document is welcome, particularly
because of the statement in [2] "The goal of this specification is to
document a minimum set of interoper
-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Klotz, Leigh
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:27 PM
To: Boris Zbarsky
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Forms WG
Subject: RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
Boris,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your asking the clarifying
questions. I'll put
du]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:54 PM
> To: Klotz, Leigh
> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Forms WG
> Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG
>
> On 11/25/09 3:46 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> > The XMLHttpRequest functionality described in this document has
On 11/25/09 3:46 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
The XMLHttpRequest functionality described in this document has
previously been well isolated, and in fact XHR itself has beeen
implemented by a number of different desktop browser vendors by
copying the original implementations.
Note that these were all
This comment on XMLHttpRequest [1] is from the Forms WG.
A standalone W3C Recommendation-track document is welcome, particularly because
of the statement in [2] "The goal of this specification is to document a
minimum set of interoperable features based on existing implementations,
allowing Web
42 matches
Mail list logo
