Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > > Just so we're clear, I really don't care what the name is, nor do I > > > have any objection to people having private conversation

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > Just so we're clear, I really don't care what the name is, nor do I > > have any objection to people having private conversations or whatnot. > > My point is just that there has not been a c

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > Just so we're clear, I really don't care what the name is, nor do I have > any objection to people having private conversations or whatnot. My point > is just that there has not been a conversation in the WHATWG list about > this which has resu

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > > > There hasn't been a discussion at all, so far. > > Please don't be too pedantic. There has been a discussion between > vendors, it just wasn't public. For which I have already apologized. I'm not trying to be pedantic, nor am I referring to pr

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > FWIW the discussion was public. > See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2014JanMar/0003.html > Haha, OK, apology withdrawn :-). Thanks, Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni l

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> >> > We could probably come up with a slightly better name, but only very >> > slightly better, so at this point I would rather not re

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > > We could probably come up with a slightly better name, but only very > > slightly better, so at this point I would rather not reopen the > > discussion. If someone else wants to, that's up to t

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, 6 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > drawFocusIfNeeded() isn't a particularly good name either, since > > you're not drawing the focus, you're drawing the focus ring. > > In the old email thread, Jatinder Mann objected to usin

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > drawFocusIfNeeded() isn't a particularly good name either, since you're > not drawing the focus, you're drawing the focus ring. > In the old email thread, Jatinder Mann objected to using the term "ring" since the focus drawn might not look lik

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Mon, 5 May 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > drawSystemFocusRing is a rather bad name since most calls to it will > draw nothing. drawCustomFocusRing is an even worse name since it will > draw nothing approximately always. > > drawFocusIfNeeded replaces drawSystemFocusRing, which is the met

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > No particular reason. The spec text is identical; just the name of the > > method changed. Roc suggested the new name and people liked it better. I > > believe Ian stated that he would update the WHAT

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >> On 2014-05-01, 2:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ehsan Akhgari >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rik, >>>

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-01, 2:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ehsan Akhgari > > wrote: >> >> Hi Rik, >> >> How extensive is our testing of this feature? I'm very surprised

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-01, 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >>> >>> No particular reason. The spec text is identical; just the name of the >>> method changed. Roc suggested the new name and people liked it bette

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On 2014-05-01, 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: No particular reason. The spec text is identical; just the name of the method changed. Roc suggested the new name and people liked it better. I believe Ian stated that he would update the WHATWG version when ther

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > No particular reason. The spec text is identical; just the name of the > method changed. Roc suggested the new name and people liked it better. I > believe Ian stated that he would update the WHATWG version when there > are 2 implementations. There's

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On 2014-05-01, 2:22 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ehsan Akhgari mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Rik, How extensive is our testing of this feature? I'm very surprised that bug 1004499 was not caught by a test when you landed this. I wrote a

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Hi Rik, > > How extensive is our testing of this feature? I'm very surprised that bug > 1004499 was not caught by a test when you landed this. > I wrote a number of mochi tests. In addition Dominc (from Google) wrote a more real world examp

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Another question: Trevor had some concerns over this API in bug 958241. > Were those concerns sufficiently addressed? Yes, drawFocusIfNeeded no longer works in conjunction with a11y. The hit region API is supposed to be used to provide acc

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > [...] > > Pointer to the bug? > This is the launch bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=935992 And this is the bug to flip the pref (I assigned it you you :-) ): https

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

Another question: Trevor had some concerns over this API in bug 958241. Were those concerns sufficiently addressed? Thanks! Ehsan On 2014-04-30, 8:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com *Spec* http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#dom-context-2

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

Hi Rik, How extensive is our testing of this feature? I'm very surprised that bug 1004499 was not caught by a test when you landed this. Cheers, Ehsan On 2014-04-30, 8:44 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com *Spec* http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_c

Re: intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > [...] Pointer to the bug? Reason it's not in the WHATWG specification? -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinf

intent to ship: drawFocusIfNeeded

Primary eng emails caban...@adobe.com *Spec* http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#dom-context-2d-drawfocusifneeded *Summary* The drawFocusIfNeeded API is a method on the canvas context that allows a user to draw a focus ring when a fallback element is focused. See http://ww