public-script-coord@w3.org from April to June 2012 by date

Friday, 29 June 2012

• Re: [IDL] merge float and double Brendan Eich
• Re: [IDL] merge float and double Cameron McCormack
• [IDL] merge float and double Anne van Kesteren

Thursday, 28 June 2012

• [Bug 17620] Add steps to convert a sequence of Unicode characters to a DOMString bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17620] Add steps to convert a sequence of Unicode characters to a DOMString bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• iterators Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Serializer comments Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: Handling of objects with both named and indexed properties is probably incorrect Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 17620] Add steps to convert a sequence of Unicode characters to a DOMString bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: An iterable DOM Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

• [Bug 17620] New: Add steps to convert a sequence of Unicode characters to a DOMString bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17593] Figure out if something needs to be said about [[Construct]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Ian Hickson
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Boris Zbarsky

Monday, 25 June 2012

• [Bug 17593] Figure out if something needs to be said about [[Construct]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Ian Hickson
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Ian Hickson
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 17593] Figure out if something needs to be said about [[Construct]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17593] New: Figure out if something needs to be said about [[Construct]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [idl] ByteString Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Cameron McCormack
• Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [idl] ByteString Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 24 June 2012

• Re: [idl] ByteString Anne van Kesteren

Saturday, 23 June 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] Comments on [Clamp] Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [idl] ByteString Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Allen Wirfs-Brock

Friday, 22 June 2012

• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Ian Hickson
• Re: [idl] ByteString Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Erik Arvidsson
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Erik Arvidsson
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Tom Van Cutsem
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• Re: [idl] ByteString Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 17435] WebIDL: Bug in definition of whitespace terminal? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17452] WebIDL: at some places in the grammar you probably intend mandatory whitespace bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Should restrictions on attribute types look at flattened member types of unions? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [idl] static attributes Cameron McCormack
• Re: Distinguishability checking for nullable unions is not correct Cameron McCormack
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Brendan Eich
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Cameron McCormack

Thursday, 21 June 2012

• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Garrett Smith
• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Garrett Smith
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Brendan Eich
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• Re: Can callback interfaces have consequential interfaces? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Can callback interfaces have consequential interfaces? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Should restrictions on attribute types look at flattened member types of unions? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Cameron McCormack
• FYI: API design discussions in WebRTC Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Bjoern Hoehrmann
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 17531] Exceptions: rename type to name bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Should restrictions on attribute types look at flattened member types of unions? Cameron McCormack
• Re: An iterable DOM Brendan Eich
• Re: An iterable DOM Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 17561] typo in normative references bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17561] typo in normative references bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

• [Bug 17561] New: typo in normative references bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17560] readonly binding unspecified for ECMAScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17560] readonly binding unspecified for ECMAScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17560] New: readonly binding unspecified for ECMAScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: An iterable DOM Jason Orendorff
• Re: Question about implements statements Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] extended attribute Marcos Caceres
• RE: Question about implements statements Travis Leithead
• Re: An iterable DOM Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Question about implements statements Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should non-callback interfaces be allowed to inherit from callback interfaces? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16832] Don't get the length property off platform objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16832] Don't get the length property off platform objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16832] Don't get the length property off platform objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16832] Don't get the length property off platform objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] extended attribute Cameron McCormack
• branching the Web IDL spec out for v2 Cameron McCormack

Tuesday, 19 June 2012

• An iterable DOM Jason Orendorff
• Re: Question about implements statements Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Question about implements statements Travis Leithead
• Should restrictions on attribute types look at flattened member types of unions? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Question about implements statements Boris Zbarsky

Monday, 18 June 2012

• Re: Question about implements statements Brendan Eich
• RE: Question about implements statements Travis Leithead
• [Bug 17531] Exceptions: rename type to name bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Distinguishability checking for nullable unions is not correct Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 17531] New: Exceptions: rename type to name bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 15 June 2012

• Re: Question about implements statements Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Question about implements statements Travis Leithead
• Question about implements statements Boris Zbarsky
• Handling of objects with both named and indexed properties is probably incorrect Boris Zbarsky

Thursday, 14 June 2012

• Can callback interfaces have consequential interfaces? Boris Zbarsky
• Should non-callback interfaces be allowed to inherit from callback interfaces? Boris Zbarsky

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

• Re: [idl] static attributes Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [idl] static attributes Cameron McCormack
• [idl] static attributes Anne van Kesteren

Monday, 11 June 2012

• [WebIDL] Comments on [Clamp] Kyle Huey

Sunday, 10 June 2012

• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Anne van Kesteren

Saturday, 9 June 2012

• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Jonas Sicking
• [Bug 17452] New: WebIDL: at some places in the grammar you probably intend mandatory whitespace bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Anne van Kesteren

Friday, 8 June 2012

• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Jonas Sicking
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Jonas Sicking
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Jonas Sicking
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Anne van Kesteren
• Unclear behavior of dictionary member default values Boris Zbarsky

Thursday, 7 June 2012

• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Garrett Smith
• RE: [WebIDL] toJSON Travis Leithead
• [idl] ByteString Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
• [Bug 17435] WebIDL: Bug in definition of whitespace terminal? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17435] New: WebIDL: Bug in definition of whitespace terminal? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Cameron McCormack
• Re: Question about diamond-shaped patterns formed by "implements" Cameron McCormack
• Re: Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Anne van Kesteren
• Why are dictionary-typed attributes not allowed? Boris Zbarsky
• Why do WebIDL dictionary members not have [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs] apply to them? Boris Zbarsky

Wednesday, 6 June 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ian Hickson
• Question about diamond-shaped patterns formed by "implements" Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Detecting the "type" of a DOM object David Bruant
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON David Bruant
• Detecting the "type" of a DOM object Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Kyle Huey
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Cameron McCormack

Saturday, 2 June 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Kyle Huey

Friday, 1 June 2012

• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Michael[tm] Smith

Thursday, 31 May 2012

• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Jason Orendorff
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON David Bruant
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Simon Pieters
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON David Bruant
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Simon Pieters

Wednesday, 30 May 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Boris Zbarsky
• RE: [WebIDL] toJSON Travis Leithead
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON Brendan Eich
• Re: [WebIDL] toJSON David Bruant
• RE: [WebIDL] toJSON Travis Leithead
• [WebIDL] toJSON David Bruant

Friday, 25 May 2012

• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Axel Rauschmayer

Thursday, 24 May 2012

• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML T.J. Crowder
• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Brendan Eich
• Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Anne van Kesteren
• announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML Allen Wirfs-Brock

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

• Re: [IDL] rationale for undefined -> null in nullable types Cameron McCormack

Monday, 14 May 2012

• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 12 May 2012

• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 11 May 2012

• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

• Updated proposal for Unicode Supplementary Characters in ECMAScript Norbert Lindenberg

Monday, 7 May 2012

• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 4 May 2012

• New Internationalization API draft posted to wiki Norbert Lindenberg

Friday, 27 April 2012

• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Marcos Caceres
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Erik Arvidsson
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Kenneth Russell

Thursday, 26 April 2012

• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

• [Bug 16833] consider always exposing a "length" property for objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16832] Don't get the length property off platform objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16832] New: Don't get the length property off platform objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 19 April 2012

• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [IDL] rationale for undefined -> null in nullable types Anne van Kesteren

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• RE: Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Travis Leithead
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: WebIDL test suite time Kyle Huey
• Should Exceptions be Errors in the ECMAScript bindings? Erik Arvidsson
• Re: WebIDL test suite time Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: WebIDL test suite time Boris Zbarsky
• Re: WebIDL test suite time Marcos Caceres
• WebIDL test suite time Travis Leithead
• [Bug 16767] Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16767] New: Allow user objects for Array[] types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

• Re: Named constant as default value Anne van Kesteren
• [TreatNonCallableAsNull] extended attribute Anssi Kostiainen

Monday, 16 April 2012

• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen

Friday, 13 April 2012

• Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Bobby Holley

Monday, 16 April 2012

• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 14 April 2012

• Re: Named constant as default value Cameron McCormack
• Named constant as default value Seo Sanghyeon
• [Bug 16720] Strange ordering in 4.2.25. Union types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Nullable union types containing other nullable types Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Nullable union types containing other nullable types Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16725] Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16720] Strange ordering in 4.2.25. Union types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Boris Zbarsky

Friday, 13 April 2012

• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Ian Hickson
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Proposal: Security checks after same-origin revocation with document.domain Ian Hickson
• [Bug 16725] New: Treat omitted dictionary the same as empty dictionary bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16720] New: Strange ordering in 4.2.25. Union types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 12 April 2012

• undefined being treated as a missing optional argument Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

• Nullable union types containing other nullable types Boris Zbarsky
• Re: regrets for this week Cameron McCormack
• regrets for this week Cameron McCormack

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

• Re: Invoking methods with optional arguments with no default values specified Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Overload resolution algorithm applies default values before it knows how many it will need Cameron McCormack
• Re: Invoking methods with optional arguments with no default values specified Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Kenneth Russell

Monday, 9 April 2012

• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Glenn Maynard
• Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Boris Zbarsky
• Invoking methods with optional arguments with no default values specified Boris Zbarsky
• Overload resolution algorithm applies default values before it knows how many it will need Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [webidl] Unions involving a primitive and a string don't make any sense Cameron McCormack
• Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Cameron McCormack
• Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Cameron McCormack
• Re: Unrestricted float Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 8 April 2012

• [Bug 16618] Use "-" instead of "−" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16609] Do we need exception inheritance? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16647] CR exit criteria should explicitly list features "at risk" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Unrestricted float Brendan Eich

Saturday, 7 April 2012

• Re: Unrestricted float Anne van Kesteren

Friday, 6 April 2012

• Re: Unrestricted float Brendan Eich
• Re: Unrestricted float Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unrestricted float Ian Hickson
• Re: Unrestricted float Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unrestricted float Marcos Caceres
• Re: Unrestricted float Ian Hickson
• Re: Unrestricted float Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 16609] Do we need exception inheritance? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16607] Errors in type conversion to nullable types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16647] New: CR exit criteria should explicitly list features "at risk" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16607] Errors in type conversion to nullable types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16609] Do we need exception inheritance? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Arrays in WebIDL aren't making sense to me so far Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: Should WebGL's getSupportedExtensions return an array or a sequence? Cameron McCormack

Thursday, 5 April 2012

• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: Should WebGL's getSupportedExtensions return an array or a sequence? Kenneth Russell
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Adam Barth

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Kenneth Russell
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16618] Use "-" instead of "−" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16618] Use "-" instead of "−" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16618] Use "-" instead of "−" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16618] New: Use "-" instead of "−" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Unrestricted float Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unrestricted float Marcos Caceres
• Re: Unrestricted float Boris Zbarsky
• Unrestricted float Marcos Caceres
• Re: Arrays in WebIDL aren't making sense to me so far Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 16609] Do we need exception inheritance? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16609] New: Do we need exception inheritance? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16607] New: Errors in type conversion to nullable types bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16604] RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Kenneth Russell
• Re: [Public WebGL] Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Glenn Maynard
• Re: Arrays in WebIDL aren't making sense to me so far Cameron McCormack
• Re: Arrays in WebIDL aren't making sense to me so far Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Can typed arrays be platform array objects for numeric types? Boris Zbarsky

Monday, 2 April 2012

• Re: Can typed arrays be platform array objects for numeric types? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should WebGL's getSupportedExtensions return an array or a sequence? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Arrays in WebIDL aren't making sense to me so far Cameron McCormack
• Re: WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Cameron McCormack
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Cameron McCormack
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Ian Hickson
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Ian Hickson
• [Bug 16604] New: RFE: add unsigned byte as synonym for octet bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Can typed arrays be platform array objects for numeric types? Boris Zbarsky
• Should WebGL's getSupportedExtensions return an array or a sequence? Boris Zbarsky
• Arrays in WebIDL aren't making sense to me so far Boris Zbarsky
• WebGL IDL for uniform1fv is not valid WebIDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Simon Pieters
• Re: [webidl] Unions involving a primitive and a string don't make any sense Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Simon Pieters
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Simon Pieters
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 1 April 2012

• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Glenn Maynard
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Kyle Huey
• Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Kyle Huey
• RE: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Travis Leithead

Last message date: Friday, 29 June 2012 08:20:37 UTC