Change of affiliation

Dear All,
>From today, I am representing Mozilla in this WG. 

Kind regards,
Marcos  
--

-- 
Marcos Caceres

DOM: Futures

The Future has arrived:

  http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#futures

Thanks in particular to the https://github.com/slightlyoff/DOMFuture
project for nailing down all of the details. If someone is interested
in contributing examples the DOM Standard accepts pull requests
https://github.com/whatwg/dom but you can also contact me directly if
you think that would be easier.

(I did a bcc to public-webapps just in case.)

--

-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

The .shadowRoot property and WebComponents

Related to the ongoing discussion about whether to expose the shadow
tree of web components by default or not, but somewhat orthogonal to
it, I think there is a question of *how* to expose the web component
shadow tree.

If I understand things correct, the .shadowRoot property and the
createShadowRoot function behaves very different on elements that have
a shadow tree attached through the use of WebComponents, compared to
if it doesn't.

With an element with no attached web component, a page can rely on the
fact that it can use .createShadowRoot in order to attach its own
custom shadow root to an element. And it can rely on that the
.shadowRoot property is null if it hasn't called .createShadowRoot and
returns the shadow root created using createShadowRoot otherwise.

But if a webcomponent has attached a shadow tree, then the .shadowRoot
and createShadowRoot API suddenly behaves differently.

I think there's value in enabling authors to always use .shadowRoot
and createShadowRoot in order to attach a "page level" shadow tree to
an element, and that that should work independently of if a web
component also has attached a shadow tree.

If there's shadow tree attached using both createShadowRoot and using
web components, then the two extend each other using the <shadow>
element the same way that multiple shadow trees attached using web
components do.

So for the cases when a web component chooses to expose its shadow

[admin] Some tips on using Mercurial and dvcs.w3.org

[ Bcc: public-{webapps,webevents,pointer-events,webapps-testsuite} ]

If you use hg  <at>  W3C, please see the info below from Alexandre.

On 1/29/13 2:18 PM, ext Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to share some tips about the use of Mercurial and
> dvcs.w3.org. It's based on very common issues that people are running
> into.
>
> do not use "tip" in the ED URL
> ------------------------------
>
> For Mercurial, "tip" is a virtual revision for the latest changeset
> among all branches.
>
> So, instead of using
>   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/tip/ldp.html
> you may want to use
>   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html
>
> Instead of "default", you can use whatever branch is
> available. "default" will be there by default.
>
> do not force an `hg push`
> -------------------------
>
> When your Mercurial client tells you that you're about to create a
> remote head, DO NOT USE "-f" TO FORCE THE OPERATION. That's bad. Very

Call for Review: Web IDL Testing document

[ Bcc: public-webapps ; please reply to public-script-coord ]

This is a Call for Review of Travis' Web IDL Testing document:

<http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/WebIDLTest.htm>

In particular, we are interested in feedback and contributions on the 
following:

* Are the assertions that are already defined (see Section 3 in the 
Testing document), valid?

* Identify the additional assertions needed to form the test suite. 
(Travis stopped on section 4.2.5 of #CR.)

* Maciej suggested (#Mins) building a conformance table to see where 
there aren't two implementations that match each WebIDL assertion. 
Thatwill be the next step after getting the initial set of assertions 
identified.

* We want to prioritize any specs that may be blocked on certain aspects 
of WebIDL conformance, to be sure to get those assertions completed and 
reviewed first. If a particular spec is blocked on a specific WebIDL 
feature, please let us know so we can prioritize it. The specs 
identified as having a Web IDL dependency are:

<http://www.w3.org/wiki/Web_IDL>

-Thanks, AB

Event.key complaints?

[admin] New public IRC server refuses passwords

[ bcc public-webevents ]

FYI, the W3C's IRC server was upgraded recently. It was supposed to be 
100% transparent to users but it turned out differently. FMI see 
<http://www.w3.org/2003/08/system-status>.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	New public IRC server refuses passwords
Resent-Date: 	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:10:36 +0000
Resent-From: 	<system-notices@...>
Date: 	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:10:29 -0400
From: 	ext Brett Smith <brett@...>
To: 	<system-notices@...>

[This issue affects *non-Team* connecting to the IRC server.  I'm
sending this out primarily for the benefit of Team liaisons and others
who need to help collaborators who connect to the public IRC server.]

We've received a few reports that W3C collaborators have been having
trouble connecting to the new public IRC server.  In each case, this has
happened because their client was configured to send a server password.
  Passwords are not necessary to connect to the public IRC server.  The
old server software would ignore this extraneous password; the new
server software rejects connections that provide it.

Public IRC server passwords are not encrypted in any way and can easily
be sniffed by malicious third parties.  Anyone who has an IRC client
configured to connect to the public IRC server with a password should
remove that password to avoid leaking sensitive information.

People with clients configured to send a W3C account password should
change their password using the form at
<http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/ChangePassword/>.

As always, anyone with questions about this change should contact us at
<sysreq@...>.

Best regards,

--

-- 
Brett Smith

[announce] WebPlatform Docs: community resource for Web developers and designers

Hi All,

On October 8 the W3C announced the alpha release of a new WebPlatform 
Docs initiative <http://www1.webplatform.org/>. From the home wiki:

[[
<http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Main_Page>

Web Platform Docs is a new community-driven site that aims to become a 
comprehensive and authoritative source for web developer documentation. 
Even though Web Platform Docs is still in alpha, you can already find 
lots of valuable content on the site, including information on:

* How to use features of the open web, with syntax and examples

* What platforms and devices you can use various technologies on

* What is the current standardization, stability and implementation 
status of each technology specification

In the future, Web Platform Docs will include even more content for you 
to explore such as live code examples, resources for educators and much 
more. To get there faster, we’d like to invite you to also contribute 
your knowledge. We hope you will join us!
]]

WebApps' scope clearly intersects the scope of this initiative (links to 
IndexedDB and File API information are already included in 
<http://www1.webplatform.org/>) and contributions from All are welcome 
(not just W3C Members).

For more information start, with the links above and/or subscribe to the 
initiative's new public-webplatform@... list <>.

-AB

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 "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 the group is on 
this spec at the time of publication; it does _not_ necessarily mean 
there is consensus on the spec's contents.

If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to 
this e-mail by October 12 at the latest. Positive response is preferred 
and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the 
proposal.

-Thanks, AB

Registration for Test the Web Forward Paris is now open!

CfC: publish WD of Shadow DOM; deadline Oct 10

Dimitri would like to publish a new Working Draft of Shadow DOM and this 
is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following document as the 
basis 
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/publish/shadow/index.html>.

Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing 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 to mean  agreement with the proposal.

-Thanks, AB