public-script-coord@w3.org from January to March 2012 by date

Saturday, 31 March 2012

• [Bug 16447] Inheritance loop bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Glenn Maynard
• Re: [Public WebGL] Should WebGLContextAttributes be a callback interface? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Anne van Kesteren
• 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 Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Cameron McCormack
• Re: [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Brendan Eich
• [Bug 16570] minor typo - s/,/\./ bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16536] Redundant statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [webidl] Unions involving a primitive and a string don't make any sense Cameron McCormack

Friday, 30 March 2012

• [XHR] Constructor behavior seems to be underdefined Boris Zbarsky
• [webidl] Unions involving a primitive and a string don't make any sense Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 16536] Redundant statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16539] The undefined date type bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16536] Redundant statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 29 March 2012

• [Bug 16570] New: minor typo - s/,/\./ bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Comments blocking Web IDL Candidate Arthur Barstow

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

• [Bug 16536] Redundant statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16539] The undefined date type bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16539] New: The undefined date type bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] New: Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16536] Redundant statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16536] New: Redundant statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Bug 16450] Class String Marcos Caceres
• Re: [Bug 16450] Class String Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Bug 16450] Class String Marcos Caceres
• Re: IDL grammar nits Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16457] IDL exceptions as platform objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16528] Rounding bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16526] sign(x) not linked bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16450] Class String bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 26 March 2012

• Re: Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 16528] Rounding bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16528] New: Rounding bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16526] sign(x) not linked bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16526] New: sign(x) not linked bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Cameron McCormack
• RE: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary Travis Leithead

Sunday, 25 March 2012

• Re: Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres
• Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Marcos Caceres
• IDL grammar nits Shiki Okasaka
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Cameron McCormack
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Cameron McCormack
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres

Saturday, 24 March 2012

• Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Kyle Huey
• Re: WebIDL "Products", was Re: CR exit criteria for Web IDL Marcos Caceres
• Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16498] exception interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16496] Confusing statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16495] Missing link to "exception" definition bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16494] Missing link to "exception field" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: WebIDL "Products", was Re: CR exit criteria for Web IDL Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary Cameron McCormack

Friday, 23 March 2012

• Re: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Marcos Caceres
• RE: Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Travis Leithead
• Should binding section be rewritten more algorithmically? Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 16498] New: exception interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16496] New: Confusing statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres
• Constructible Exceptions Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 16495] New: Missing link to "exception" definition bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16494] New: Missing link to "exception field" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• WebIDL "Products", was Re: CR exit criteria for Web IDL Marcos Caceres

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

• [Bug 16438] ECMAScript environment bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16439] Avoid reserved words for variables bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16440] interface prototype object. bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16455] Using platform object example bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16457] IDL exceptions as platform objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16454] SomethingError bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16447] Inheritance loop bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16450] Class String bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16470] Exception message contruction bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16471] New: Exception "type" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16470] Exception message contruction bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16470] New: Exception message contruction bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16447] Inheritance loop bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26 Robin Berjon

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

• [Bug 16454] SomethingError bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16454] SomethingError bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16457] IDL exceptions as platform objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16457] New: IDL exceptions as platform objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16455] New: Using platform object example bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16454] SomethingError bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16454] New: SomethingError bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26 Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• [Bug 16450] New: Class String bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16447] New: Inheritance loop bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: any type conversion Marcos Caceres
• Re: any type conversion Cameron McCormack
• CR exit criteria for Web IDL Cameron McCormack

Monday, 19 March 2012

• [Bug 16418] editorial - change "is to be" to "SHOULD be" in warning text bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16440] New: interface prototype object. bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16439] New: Avoid reserved words for variables bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16438] New: ECMAScript environment bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• any type conversion Marcos Caceres
• RE: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26 Travis Leithead
• [Bug 16418] editorial - change "is to be" to "SHOULD be" in warning text bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26 Charles McCathieNevile
• Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26 Marcos Caceres
• CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web IDL; deadline March 26 Arthur Barstow
• [Bug 16417] refer to "callback[s]" as "callback function[s]" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16420] nullable or non-nullable sequence type == sequence type ? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16420] nullable or non-nullable sequence type == sequence type ? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16419] order of partial interface definitions not in the same IDL fragment bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16418] editorial - change "is to be" to "SHOULD be" in warning text bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16416] missing implements statement in example of implements statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16386] Issue in example provided for es-sequence in WebIDL. bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Sunday, 18 March 2012

• [Bug 16420] New: nullable or non-nullable sequence type == sequence type ? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16419] New: order of partial interface definitions not in the same IDL fragment bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16418] New: editorial - change "is to be" to "SHOULD be" in warning text bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16417] New: refer to "callback[s]" as "callback function[s]" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16416] New: missing implements statement in example of implements statement bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 17 March 2012

• The [ArrayClass], [Clamp], [EnforceRange] and [ImplicitThis] extended attributes. Marcos Caceres

Thursday, 15 March 2012

• [Bug 16386] New: Issue in example provided for es-sequence in WebIDL. bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16334] Editorial: operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 12 March 2012

• [Bug 16334] New: Editorial: operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Simon Pieters
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 11 March 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] change argument names from identifiers Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [WebIDL] change argument names from identifiers Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Boris Zbarsky

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 5 March 2012

• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Conversion of ES Number to WebIDL long long and unsigned long long should not throw by default Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] change argument names from identifiers Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Sunday, 4 March 2012

• [Bug 16220] Type: "decalred" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 3 March 2012

• [Bug 16220] New: Type: "decalred" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• SETIT 2012 Invitation SETIT 2012

Friday, 2 March 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Glenn Adams
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Erik Corry
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Glenn Adams
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Erik Corry
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Norbert Lindenberg

Thursday, 1 March 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Glenn Adams
• Re: [Webidl] Remove links to ECMASCript PDF document Marcos Caceres
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Erik Corry
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Erik Corry
• Re: Specification links in code generated from WebIDL Cameron McCormack
• Re: [Webidl] Remove links to ECMASCript PDF document Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Optional rule in grammar (Web IDL W3C W.D. 7 Feb 2012) Cameron McCormack
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

• Summary of advice, numeric constants vs enumerated strings Harald Alvestrand

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich

Saturday, 25 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Glenn Adams
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Boris Zbarsky
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Glenn Adams
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Cameron McCormack
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Garrett Smith

Friday, 24 February 2012

• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Tab Atkins Jr.
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Garrett Smith
• Re: Specification links in code generated from WebIDL Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Specification links in code generated from WebIDL Stefan Haustein
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16098] callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16098] New: callback interfaces with constants should have no interface prototype object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: namegetter on prototype? (was Re: [cssom] CSSStyleDeclaration) Cameron McCormack
• Re: Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Cameron McCormack

Thursday, 23 February 2012

• Re: Specification links in code generated from WebIDL Charles McCathieNevile
• Re: Specification links in code generated from WebIDL Robin Berjon
• Getters establish own properties, or why is [NamedPropertiesObject] discouraged? Tab Atkins Jr.
• namegetter on prototype? (was Re: [cssom] CSSStyleDeclaration) Glenn Adams
• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Webidl] Remove links to ECMASCript PDF document Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
• [Webidl] Remove links to ECMASCript PDF document Marcos Caceres

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Norbert Lindenberg
• Specification links in code generated from WebIDL Stefan Haustein
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Norbert Lindenberg

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Norbert Lindenberg

Thursday, 23 February 2012

• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16075] New: Make a float/double type that excludes NaN/Infinity/-Infinity bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland
• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16074] New: Define |[TreatNonCallableAsNull] Function?| as a builtin bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

• RE: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Phillips, Addison
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• [WebIDL] change argument names from identifiers Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• RE: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Phillips, Addison
• RE: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Phillips, Addison
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• RE: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Phillips, Addison
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland
• Reminder: RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline February 28 Arthur Barstow
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock

Monday, 20 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland

Sunday, 19 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Wes Garland

Monday, 20 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• RE: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Phillips, Addison
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Mark Davis ☕
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 19 February 2012

• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Mark S. Miller
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Boris Zbarsky
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea David Bruant
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Boris Zbarsky
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• RE: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Phillips, Addison
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Anne van Kesteren
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Mark S. Miller
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea David Bruant
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Mark S. Miller
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Boris Zbarsky
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Mark S. Miller
• Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea Jussi Kalliokoski
• New full Unicode for ES6 idea Brendan Eich

Friday, 17 February 2012

• [Bug 16014] Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16014] New: Make it clear that callbacks should only be used for Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 16 February 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] Simplify callbacks Olli Pettay
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• Re: [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Boris Zbarsky
• [TreatNonCallableAsNull] alternative? Marcos Caceres
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Alex Russell
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Philip Jägenstedt

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Timothy B. Terriberry
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Tab Atkins Jr.
• RE: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Travis Leithead
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Alex Russell
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Marcos Caceres
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Marcos Caceres
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Tobie Langel
• Re: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Anne van Kesteren
• Numeric constants vs enumerated strings Harald Alvestrand
• RE: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary Travis Leithead

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15986] New: Specify exactly how and when ECMAScript arguments are evaluated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 13 February 2012

• Optional rule in grammar (Web IDL W3C W.D. 7 Feb 2012) Anton Tayanovskyy
• Re: Conversion of ES Number to WebIDL long long and unsigned long long should not throw by default Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Conversion of ES Number to WebIDL long long and unsigned long long should not throw by default Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Conversion of ES Number to WebIDL long long and unsigned long long should not throw by default Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Conversion of ES Number to WebIDL long long and unsigned long long should not throw by default Sigbjorn Finne

Sunday, 12 February 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary Cameron McCormack

Thursday, 9 February 2012

• [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary Travis Leithead
• Re: Tizen's TZDate Robin Berjon

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

• Conversion of ES Number to WebIDL long long and unsigned long long should not throw by default Boris Zbarsky

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

• RfC: Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline February 28 Arthur Barstow

Friday, 3 February 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] Worry on Enum type - binding seems inconsistently defined Anne van Kesteren

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

• RE: Tizen's TZDate Travis Leithead
• Re: Tizen's TZDate Brendan Eich
• Re: Tizen's TZDate timeless

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

• Tizen's TZDate Robin Berjon
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ian Hickson

Monday, 30 January 2012

• [Bug 15762] 3.1 Names / constants clarification bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15762] 3.1 Names / constants clarification bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Math method to calculate root for arbitrary exponent (e.g. cube root) Garrett Smith
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky

Sunday, 29 January 2012

• Re: Math method to calculate root for arbitrary exponent (e.g. cube root) Cameron McCormack
• Math method to calculate root for arbitrary exponent (e.g. cube root) Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
• [Bug 15764] Review notes for normative statements bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15763] Redundant requirement about an interface inheriting from itself bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15766] Typo s/token/tokens/ bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15762] 3.1 Names / constants clarification bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 12385] Consider adding function types or a simpler definition for [Callback] interfaces with a single operation bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 15765] Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 28 January 2012

• Re: CfC: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3 Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 15766] New: Typo s/token/tokens/ bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15765] New: Replaceable interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15764] New: Review notes for normative statements bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15763] New: Redundant requirement about an interface inheriting from itself bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15762] New: 3.1 Names / constants clarification bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 12385] Consider adding function types or a simpler definition for [Callback] interfaces with a single operation bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 27 January 2012

• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• RE: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3 Travis Leithead
• CfC: publish new LCWD of Web IDL; deadline February 3 Arthur Barstow
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Cameron McCormack
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Marcos Caceres
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Cameron McCormack
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Marcos Caceres

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Charles McCathieNevile

Monday, 23 January 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [WebIDL] Feedback on getter and setter attribute algorithms Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 13166] operation calling algorithm doesn't work for static operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15412] simplify or remove the definitions of "platform object" and "user object" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15411] ES to IDL conversion algorithms shouldn't accept values that the overload resolution algorithm wouldn't bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack

Thursday, 19 January 2012

• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Alex Russell

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

• Re: Strict mode callbacks and setTimeout Ian Hickson

Thursday, 12 January 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] Worry on Enum type - binding seems inconsistently defined Harald Alvestrand
• Re: [WebIDL] Worry on Enum type - binding seems inconsistently defined Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 11 January 2012

• Re: [WebIDL] Worry on Enum type - binding seems inconsistently defined Tab Atkins Jr.
• [WebIDL] Worry on Enum type - binding seems inconsistently defined Arthur Barstow

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Lachlan Hunt

Monday, 9 January 2012

• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
• querySelectorAll() -- selecting _immediate_ children of element Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com

Sunday, 8 January 2012

• [WebIDL] Feedback on getter and setter attribute algorithms David Bruant

Saturday, 7 January 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack

Friday, 6 January 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Allen Wirfs-Brock
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Brendan Eich

Thursday, 5 January 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Andreas Rossberg

Friday, 6 January 2012

• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array João Eiras
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• (no subject) Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead

Thursday, 5 January 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ojan Vafai
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array Cameron McCormack
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array João Eiras
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array Cameron McCormack
• Re: Grammar for Union Types Cameron McCormack
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ojan Vafai
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Marcos Caceres
• RE: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Travis Leithead
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array João Eiras
• Re: Grammar for Union Types Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Grammar for Union Types Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: callback interface not LL(1) Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ojan Vafai
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ojan Vafai
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Boris Zbarsky
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Ojan Vafai
• Re: variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack
• Re: callback interface not LL(1) Cameron McCormack
• Re: Grammar for Union Types Cameron McCormack
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array Cameron McCormack
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 15412] New: simplify or remove the definitions of "platform object" and "user object" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 15411] New: ES to IDL conversion algorithms shouldn't accept values that the overload resolution algorithm wouldn't bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument Cameron McCormack
• variable declarations shadowing named properties on window Cameron McCormack

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

• callback interface not LL(1) Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Grammar for Union Types Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array James Graham
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Arthur Barstow
• Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Marcos Caceres
• RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17 Arthur Barstow
• Re: Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array João Eiras
• Omissions in IDL sequence and IDL array conversion to ES array João Eiras
• Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument Anne van Kesteren

Sunday, 1 January 2012

• Happy New Year 2012 International confrence SETIT'12

Last message date: Saturday, 31 March 2012 21:14:53 UTC