Re: [whatwg] @font-face rules in

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 13:12, Roland Steiner wrote: > I'm implementing

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 11/21/11 3:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> > If you can tell me which pieces those are, I can see what I can do >> > about updating the annotations mechanism to make those checkins easier >> > to fil

Re: [whatwg] @font-face rules in

I'm implementing for WebKit at the moment, so please allow me to add my take to some of the issues raised (although I certainly don't claim to be an authoritative source of insight! ^_-). Comments inline: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:11, Daniel Glazman < daniel.glaz...@disruptive-innovations.com> w

[whatwg] including section titles and IDs in HTML spec diffs [was: WHATWG on Google+]

Ian Hickson , 2011-11-22 00:40 +: > I'm poking around at this. I'm not sure sections are the best way to > organise this, because self-contained features are often in various parts > of the spec, or end up sprouting new sections unexpectedly. So I'm looking > at annotating the spec source w

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > Another option is for someone (possibly me) to create a system whereby > > people can subscribe to specific portions of the specification, and > > for a tool to detect when a diff affects that portion and e-mail them. > > I'm not exactly sure ho

Re: [whatwg] Using requestFileSystem to setup mounts

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > ** > Multiple directories still have a shared file system root. Their relative > paths are exposed in webkitdirectory files already. > The benefit is neutered .files object while maintaining compatibility with > existing code bases. > I

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 3:54 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: If the number of people who would benefit from explicit annotations is small, I would be happy to add explicit annotations for those people. Given that the set of people who would like to know about spec changes in "their" area probably includes all deve

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, L. David Baron wrote: > > I have tried to use these markings to filter changes; however, my sense > was that a majority of those marked as "g" didn't actually require Gecko > changes. I think that's because you often mark things as affecting > browsers simply because the b

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Monday 2011-11-21 20:26 +, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > > What's needed is a way to notice when changes to a particular piece > > happen. There isn't one. > > Which pieces do you _not_ want to be notified of changes to? > > I currently (try to) ma

Re: [whatwg] Using requestFileSystem to setup mounts

On 11/21/11 8:45 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Kinuko Yasuda > wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Pritchard mailto:ch...@jumis.com>> wrote: > input.ondrop = function(e) { > window.requestFileSystem(e.dataTransf

Re: [whatwg] Using requestFileSystem to setup mounts

On 11/21/11 6:10 AM, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: Hi, thanks for your comment! On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote: // Proposal, using DataTransfer with rFS: input.ondrop = function(e) { window.requestFileSystem(e.dataTransfer, 0, cb); } There's some slight room for delaying

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 11/21/11 3:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > If you can tell me which pieces those are, I can see what I can do > > about updating the annotations mechanism to make those checkins easier > > to filter out. > > That's the problem. The set of changes tha

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 3:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: If you can tell me which pieces those are, I can see what I can do about updating the annotations mechanism to make those checkins easier to filter out. That's the problem. The set of changes that matter to a particular person is not static... Up unti

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 11/21/11 3:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > What's needed is a way to notice when changes to a particular piece > > > happen. There isn't one. > > > > Which pieces do you _not_ want to be notified of changes to? > > "Whatever doesn't affect code I ma

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 3:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: What's needed is a way to notice when changes to a particular piece happen. There isn't one. Which pieces do you _not_ want to be notified of changes to? "Whatever doesn't affect code I maintain", with my implementor hat on. Yes, I know this is vague.

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > What's needed is a way to notice when changes to a particular piece > happen. There isn't one. Which pieces do you _not_ want to be notified of changes to? I currently (try to) mark all changes that affect browser vendors as such in the checkin co

Re: [whatwg] Using requestFileSystem to setup mounts

I wish people wouldn't randomly split threads. This isn't a different conversation. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Pritchard > wrote: > > input.ondrop = function(e) { > > window.requestFileSystem(e.dataTransfer, 0, cb); > > } >

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 11:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Following everything what is going on with regards to the platform is impossible these days. There are too many pieces. Indeed. What's needed is a way to notice when changes to a particular piece happen. There isn't one. A poor stand-in would

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:35:09 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: "Anne van Kesteren" schrieb am Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:14:16 +0100: I personally had a number of useful technical discussions on Google+. Maybe some of those will take place on the WHATWG Google+ page. Excluding those without an ac

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 10:48 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: My "impression" is that following all changes to the specification via the revision control system is a pretty large burden, if nothing else because there is no obvious way to do it linked from anywhere I can find. Maybe a small set of people "in the kno

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 10:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:16:22 +0100, Boris Zbarsky wrote: As long as all technical discussion ends up in a central place where everyone can see it at some point, no harm done. My experience is that once you have side channels for technical discussi

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:16:22 +0100, Boris Zbarsky wrote: As long as all technical discussion ends up in a central place where everyone can see it at some point, no harm done. My experience is that once you have side channels for technical discussion, that doesn't happen anymore. Plenty of

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

"Anne van Kesteren" schrieb am Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:14:16 +0100: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:54:38 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp > wrote: > > With less sarcasm: What use is this if one already reads the blog? > […] > Basically, I'm hoping to find out. I can understand you. I tried out G+ too and f

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On 11/21/11 9:22 AM, Jake Verbaten wrote: As long as G+ is only an optional addition for people who want to use it, does it really do harm? As long as all technical discussion ends up in a central place where everyone can see it at some point, no harm done. My experience is that once you hav

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

(11/11/21 22:14), Anne van Kesteren wrote: > We started with email, branched out to IRC, got forums and wiki, a blog, > a Twitter account. Each of those has proven successful I think. Not > always to the same people, but I think that is the value. By giving > people choice in how to participate we

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

> > With less sarcasm: What use is this if one already reads the blog? None, this isn't for you. It's for people who use G+. It's a minor addition that increases the total number of ways you can get information. As long as G+ is only an optional addition for people who want to use it, does it re

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:54:38 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: With less sarcasm: What use is this if one already reads the blog? This was brought up on IRC as well: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/2021#l-348 Basically, I'm hoping to find out. I personally had a numb

Re: [whatwg] Using requestFileSystem to setup mounts

Hi, thanks for your comment! On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > Kinuko Yasuda, I saw your post to whatwg regarding drag-and-drop directory > mounts. > > I'm sure you've seen the various concerns people have with the proposal.. > Like others, I'm also concerned about the s

Re: [whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

"Anne van Kesteren" schrieb am Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:44:58 +0100: > Not knowing what the Pages feature was on Google+, I decided to try > it out. Now WHATWG is represented there: > >https://plus.google.com/110228011578241735536/ > > I plan on sharing links to the WHATWG Weekly. Ideas welcome,

[whatwg] WHATWG on Google+

Not knowing what the Pages feature was on Google+, I decided to try it out. Now WHATWG is represented there: https://plus.google.com/110228011578241735536/ I plan on sharing links to the WHATWG Weekly. Ideas welcome, but since apparently there can only be one maintainer for a given page on

Re: [whatwg] Drag-and-drop folders/files support with directory structure using DirectoryEntry

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: >> >> I would say the approach has a bloating per-page bookkeeping problem but >> not a 'leak'. > > It's a reference leak: an object which remains referenced after it's no > longer needed