On Wednesday 2015-04-08 17:03 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>
> HTML5 Web Messaging
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webmessaging/
>
> There's a call for review to W3C member companies
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:03:45 PM UTC-4, L. David Baron wrote:
> This is a specification that's the W3C version of a piece of the
> WHATWG HTML specification. It appears (from looking at code) to be
> something we implement, although I'm not sure if there are
> differences between the W3C
David,
> Le 14 oct. 2014 à 07:29, L. David Baron a écrit :
> Here is my current draft of the comments I plan to submit in about 12
> hours (cc:ing the whole AC, I think). Sorry for not getting this out
> for people to have a look at sooner.
Good summary of our discussions. Thanks.
--
Karl Dub
On 10/14/14, 1:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
(2) While it would be helpful to have the recommendation contain
The "While" seems extraneous.
The rest looks great!
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozill
On Friday 2014-09-19 17:23 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
> HTML5
>
> There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla
> is o
On 30/09/14 16:56, Patrick Walton wrote:
> On 9/21/14 6:00 AM, James Graham wrote:
>> In the longer term, one might hope that bugfixes will produce new
>> testcases that could be upstreamed, and Servo might need a proper
>> testsuite to achieve interoperability. Having said that, Servo has so
>> fa
On 9/21/14 6:00 AM, James Graham wrote:
In the longer term, one might hope that bugfixes will produce new
testcases that could be upstreamed, and Servo might need a proper
testsuite to achieve interoperability. Having said that, Servo has so
far not produced a significant number of tests, which h
Specifically on the subject of what URL spec to reference, I think it
should be Mozilla's position (which I'm willing to represent) that the
W3C HTML5 spec reference the dated URL spec[1] instead of the
copy/paste/modified(even if informatively) W3C WebApps URL spec.
[1] https://whatwg.org/specs/u
On 9/22/14, 1:18 PM, James Graham wrote:
I think you'd get a better result by asking for agreement from all the
relevant implementors that they felt that the spec was implementable.
The problem was that in some cases this was more a less a non-goal (in
some cases an anti-goal) for the spec edi
On 21/09/14 22:19, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/21/14, 9:00 AM, James Graham wrote:
> More interestingly, either the specification is implementable or not.
> Again, because once the REC is published everyone goes home and never
> touches that document again.
>
> The two implementations condition wa
On Monday 2014-09-22 13:55 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I agree with your general sentiment but I would qualify it. If you
> are participating *and* have made a bona fide attempt at fixing the
> issues you see with the group then you can certainly distance
> yourself from the group's actions.
>
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On 20/09/2014 17:26 , Kyle Huey wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
>>>
>>>
>>> Here the W
On 22/09/14 13:16, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I can't say it has brought about a revolution yet, but it has certainly
> helped change minds. It's hard to argue against a continuously updated
> test suite. It's hard to imagine that such an animal wouldn't find spec
> bugs in addition to implementation b
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Right. So I can't speak for the people who are working on that, but I can
> vouch that they are open to feedback and have no foul intention whatsoever.
I've yet to receive replies to the feedback I gave when it was announced.
> Overall, Ann
On 22/09/2014 15:04 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
If that was the goal, changing the "Goals" section of the spec to cast
doubts about whether the direction the W3C envisions for the spec is
consistent with
On 22/09/14 12:43, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM, James Graham wrote:
>> leaving the remaining participants to debate topics of
>> little consequence.
>
> FWIW, this bit is being spun into Twitter propaganda about Mozilla not
> caring about accessibility, so it might be
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>
>>> I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token
>>> of
>>> good faith and normalisation, adding a small co
On 22/09/2014 14:40 , Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
cooperation.
If that was the goal, changing
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I was hoping that we could simply reference WHATWG URL as a (small) token of
> good faith and normalisation, adding a small cobblestone to pave the way to
> cooperation.
If that was the goal, changing the "Goals" section of the spec to cast
d
On 21/09/2014 00:29 , Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 21 sept. 2014 à 03:23, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
The important part to me about implementations is that
implementations shouldn't follow the known-bogus parts of the HTML5
REC once said bogosity if fixed in the WHATWG spec and HTML5.1
(with the former m
Hi James,
On 21/09/2014 15:00 , James Graham wrote:
Obviously I agree that good testing of implementations is key to
interoperability. I also agree that we should encourage vendors to
create and run shared tests for the web technologies that we implement.
I am substantially less convinced that t
Hi Kyle,
On 20/09/2014 17:26 , Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;)
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40
On 20/09/2014 11:20 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be
meaningfully implementable and/or testable.
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that, yet hasn't invested any
meaningful effort into cre
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:00 PM, James Graham wrote:
> On 20/09/14 03:46, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 9/19/14, 8:23 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
>>> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>>
>> The biggest issue I have wit
Hi David,
On 20/09/2014 02:23 , L. David Baron wrote:
One of the open issues being raised in this review is the status of
the spec's normative reference to the URL specification. The
specification currently references http://www.w3.org/TR/url/ ; it
might be possible for us to suggest that it in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi David,
On 09/20/2014 02:23 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ HTML5
>
> There's a call for review to W3
On 9/21/14, 9:00 AM, James Graham wrote:
I am substantially less convinced that tying these tests to the spec
lifecycle makes sense.
Agreed. The only reason it's an issue for me is the lack of
errata-issuance by the W3C and hence the tendency to attempt to enshrine
obviously-wrong things in
On 20/09/14 03:46, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/19/14, 8:23 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
>> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>
> The biggest issue I have with this is exiting CR without anything
> resembling a compreh
On 9/20/14, 6:29 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
"This published recommendation has switched
to a non maintenance mode. It may contain
mistakes or things may have changed since
the publication. Please make sure to check
the most up to date document BLAH [with
link to the whatw
Le 21 sept. 2014 à 03:23, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
> The important part to me about implementations is that implementations
> shouldn't follow the known-bogus parts of the HTML5 REC once said bogosity if
> fixed in the WHATWG spec and HTML5.1 (with the former more likely to happen
> sooner).
M
On 9/20/14, 5:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
Is the whatwg spec interoperable?
No.
Will it ever be?
That's the goal. Whether we manage to get there, we'll see.
So Boris said incomplete test suite. That's one comment.
Note that I didn't say we should bring the comment back to the AC, since
On 9/20/14, 5:03 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
The biggest issue I have with this is exiting CR without anything resembling a
comprehensive enough test suite
* What is a comprehensive enough test suite?
Ideally, one that has a test for every normative requirement in the
specification. This means
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Anne,
>
> Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
>> Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
>
> Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;)
> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1&order=org#_MozillaFou
Anne,
Le 20 sept. 2014 à 18:20, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that
Here the W3C crowd. We (Mozilla) have a conflict ;)
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1&order=org#_MozillaFoundation
This apart, I would love to have this discussion durin
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> My biggest issue with HTML5 spec is that it is too big to be meaningfully
> implementable and/or testable.
Yeah the W3C crowd keeps saying that, yet hasn't invested any
meaningful effort into creating modules.
> It's here where I have a di
Boris, David,
Le 20 sept. 2014 à 11:46, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
> The biggest issue I have with this is exiting CR without anything resembling
> a comprehensive enough test suite
* What is a comprehensive enough test suite?
* How far the current test suite is from the comprehensive test suite y
On 9/19/14, 8:23 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
The biggest issue I have with this is exiting CR without anything
resembling a comprehensive enough test suite to ensure anything like
37 matches
Mail list logo
