Léonie Watson | 25 Jun 20:12 2016
Picon

Re: CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR


On 21/06/2016 13:14, Léonie Watson wrote:
> Important: This CFC is extended for 48 hours. Please provide comments by
> end of day on Thursday 23^rd June 2016.

With thanks to those who responded, this CFC passes. We will begin the 
process of transitioning Pointer Lock to CR.

Léonie.

--

-- 
 <at> LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

Kirill Topolyan | 18 Jun 19:57 2016

[selectors-api] typo in specification

Hello.

At the moment I'm translating "Selectors API Level 1" [1] and it seems I have noticed a typo in the original document.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api/

Section 6.4:
"If result is invalid ([SELECT], section 12), raisea a SYNTAX_ERR exception ([DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE],
section 1.4) and abort this algorithm."

Probably it meant "raise a SYNTAX_ERR" instead "raisea a SYNTAX_ERR"?

Best regards,
Kirill, http://topolyan.com/

Léonie Watson | 13 Jun 18:12 2016
Picon

CFC: Republish Pointer Lock as CR

Hello WP,

This is a Call For Consensus (CFC) to request that W3C republish Pointer
Lock as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). Extensions to the MouseEventInit
Dictionary [1] constitute substantive changes to the specification that were
made after the current CR was published in 2013 [2].

Please reply to this CFC no later than 21st June 2016. Positive responses
are preferred and supporting comments (beyond just +1) are encouraged, but
silence will be considered as consent.

Thank you.

	Léonie on behalf of the WP chairs and team, and Pointer Lock editor.
[1]
https://w3c.github.io/pointerlock/#extensions-to-the-mouseeventinit-dictiona
ry 
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-pointerlock-20131217/ 
--

-- 
 <at> LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

Gravatar

[clipboard][DnD][DataTransfer] custom types and security

Hi public-webapps, or the sub-set of your that are interested in
clipboard and DnD stuff: we've started an interesting thread regarding
DataTransfer, custom types and security here

https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1244

and implementor input is especially welcome. Allow me to paste parts
of my last comment, explaining a tricky issue I'd like a wider review
of:

Regarding the custom types: obviously, if we want to enable
interoperability between the same web apps running in different
browser engines, we need to spec a shared clipboard format for custom
data. This implies that other native software will also see a "Web
browser custom data" clipboard entry (by any description after some
bikeshedding) and potentially grow features that start making use of
said "Web browser custom data" on paste/drop.

If this is considered an extremely rare use case we should not cater
for, and custom data on the real OS clipboard is considered too risky,
we can of course spec that the browsers should keep custom data
somewhere internally and augment the DataTransfer object with the
internally stored custom data as if it were on the clipboard on the
next paste (unless the OS clipboard's contents changed meanwhile).
This seems harder to test and harder to get right, but it is a
judgement call.

-Hallvord

(Continue reading)

Sangwhan Moon | 3 Jun 03:45 2016
Picon
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)


> On Jun 3, 2016, at 01:35, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@...> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:14:38 +0200, <marcos@...> wrote:
> 
>> Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of this mailing list.
>> 
>> For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is objections.
> 
> Hi Marcos,
> 
> If there are no objections, then the +1's indeed don't matter. But if there is one or more, then having some
measure of the overall consensus of the group is important.
> 
> It's why we've got the arrangement that except where progressing makes a significant difference, we do it
automatically and allow for objection as the exception case. Moving to CR potentially binds members to
patent commitments, which matters to some members as well as to many people "out there in the wild", and
requires that we demonstrate agreement of the group.
> 
> So I'm sorry for the extra mail, but in this case I'm afraid it's part of running the W3C process. If
everything goes smoothly, you can expect this for HTML twice more in the next year: once to move to Proposed
Recommendation, and once to move 5.2 to First Public Working Draft.

I believe Marcos is raising a valid concern here - while I'm not in full agreement that only objections
matter, most of the people get enough mail already and it does make it easy to get important feedback
lost in a chain of +1 mails. (and when it piles up, it's just something you zip through and mark as read,
now repeat time spent doing that multiplied by subscribers of this ML...)

Having a platform where the chairs/staff can get a quick overview of the consensus stats sounds a
like it could save time in the even anyone needs the consensus statistics. (As mentioned in a earlier
(Continue reading)

bugzilla | 2 Jun 22:46 2016
Picon

[Bug 18242] Not clear what "script that invoked the method" means exactly in the case of e.g. a.setTimeout(b.postMessage, 0) // called from c

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18242

Domenic Denicola <d <at> domenic.me> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |d <at> domenic.me
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
           Assignee|cam@...               |d <at> domenic.me

--- Comment #35 from Domenic Denicola <d <at> domenic.me> ---
This text no longer appears in HTML, so closing. There is still ongoing work
around figuring out the right globals in various places but that's tracked
elsewhere.

--

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

bugzilla | 2 Jun 22:46 2016
Picon

[Bug 23780] Check XMLHttpRequest and Notification don' t break given the new script settings object stuff

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23780
Bug 23780 depends on bug 18242, which changed state.

Bug 18242 Summary: Not clear what "script that invoked the method" means exactly in the case of e.g.
a.setTimeout(b.postMessage, 0) // called from c
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18242

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL | 2 Jun 15:48 2016
Picon

RE: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

+1 to publish WD

​​​​​

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@... | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn
Profile | Office: 703-371-5545

-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@...] 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 8:53 AM
To: public-html@...
Subject: FW: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

Please respond on public-webapps@... as the official email for the WP WG.
Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@...]
Sent: 02 June 2016 13:48
To: 'public-webapps WG' <public-webapps@...>
Subject: CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

Hello WP,

This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate
(Continue reading)

Léonie Watson | 2 Jun 14:48 2016
Picon

CFC: Request to move HTML5.1 to Candidate Recommendation (CR)

Hello WP,

This is a call for consensus to request that W3C publish the current HTML
Working Draft (WD) as a Candidate Recommendation (CR). It has been posted to
public-webapps@... as the official email for this WG.

Please reply to this thread on public-webapps@...  no later than end of
day on 10 June. Positive responses are preferred and encouraged, silence
will be considered as assent.

The current HTML5.1 WD [1] improves upon HTML5. It includes updates that
make it more reliable, more readable and understandable, and a better match
for reality. Substantial changes between HTML5 and HTML5.1 can be found in
the spec [2].

When a specification moves to CR it triggers a Call For Exclusions, per
section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [3]. No substantive additions can be made
to a specification in CR without starting a new Call for Exclusions, so we
will put HTML5.1 into "feature freeze". It is possible to make editorial
updates as necessary, and features marked "At Risk" may be removed if found
not to be interoperable.

The following features are considered "at risk". If we cannot identify at
least two shipping implementations, they will be marked "at risk" in the CR
and may be removed from the Proposed Recommendation.

keygen element. [issue 43]
label as a reassociatable element [issue 109]
Fixing requestAnimationFrame to 60Hz, not implementation-defined [issues
159/375/422]
(Continue reading)

Lin, Wanming | 31 May 09:46 2016
Picon

Self-introduction from Wanming Lin

Hello WP,

My name is Wanming Lin, many thanks Wayne for inviting me join in WP WG.

I work for Intel OTC Web QA team which focuses on testing work for advanced Web technologies especially for
latest W3C standard Web APIs. We started to contribute Web API test cases to W3C upstream since early 2012,
also continuously submit tests, participate in technical discussion in the community mailing lists,
review test code from others, participant in and make presentations in events.

I am proud to represent my team to join in this group, I am a newbie but I will try my best. 
Looking forward to working with you all.

Best regards,
Wanming

Ben Kelly | 26 May 17:59 2016
Gravatar

Re: [Service Workers] meeting july/august?

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals-XoJtRXgx1JseBXzfvpsJ4g@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Hi folks,

at the last meeting people suggested another meeting in July/August. Should we be trying to schedule one?

We'd actually already been discussing this between the last participants.  Our current plan is:

  July 28, 29
  Mozilla office in Toronto

The w3c/webplatformwg page for the meeting should be up soon.

The next meeting after this will likely be at TPAC.

Thanks.

Ben

Gmane