public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2013 by date

Monday, 30 September 2013

• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Dirk Schulze
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Dirk Schulze
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Dirk Schulze
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Arthur Barstow
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Simon Pieters
• Re: [admin] Boris Zbarsky is a new Editor of Web IDL spec Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 29 September 2013

• RE: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Zhang, Zhiqiang

Saturday, 28 September 2013

• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Dirk Schulze
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Dirk Schulze

Friday, 27 September 2013

• RE: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Domenic Denicola
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• RE: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Domenic Denicola
• RE: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Domenic Denicola
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions Robert O'Callahan
• Re: [admin] Boris Zbarsky is a new Editor of Web IDL spec Jonas Sicking
• Re: [admin] Boris Zbarsky is a new Editor of Web IDL spec Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Brendan Eich
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Brendan Eich
• [admin] Boris Zbarsky is a new Editor of Web IDL spec Arthur Barstow
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Cameron McCormack
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Domenic Denicola
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Cameron McCormack

Thursday, 26 September 2013

• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Rick Waldron
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23358] A hook for objects that can enter a "dead" mode bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Dirk Schulze
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Tab Atkins Jr.
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Boris Zbarsky
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Boris Zbarsky
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 23369] Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23369] New: Provide hooks for Typed Arrays bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• RE: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Domenic Denicola
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Dirk Schulze
• [Bug 23367] New: Move exceptions into IDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Domenic Denicola
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Dirk Schulze
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Anne van Kesteren
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Domenic Denicola
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Domenic Denicola
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Dirk Schulze
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Robert O'Callahan
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Dirk Schulze
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Cameron McCormack
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Cameron McCormack
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• [Bug 23358] A hook for objects that can enter a "dead" mode bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23358] A hook for objects that can enter a "dead" mode bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

• [Bug 23358] A hook for objects that can enter a "dead" mode bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23358] New: A hook for objects that can enter a "dead" mode bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Rick Waldron
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Anne van Kesteren
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Tab Atkins Jr.
• Using arrays in platform APIs Anne van Kesteren
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Anne van Kesteren
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• Re: How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Anne van Kesteren
• How to specify an object that can be mutable or immutable Simon Pieters
• RE: [WebIDL] Which realm should be used for coercing null/undefined this values to "the" global object? Travis Leithead

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

• Re: [WebIDL] Which realm should be used for coercing null/undefined this values to "the" global object? David Bruant
• Re: [WebIDL] Which realm should be used for coercing null/undefined this values to "the" global object? Boris Zbarsky

Monday, 23 September 2013

• Re: [WebIDL] Which realm should be used for coercing null/undefined this values to "the" global object? David Bruant
• [WebIDL] Which realm should be used for coercing null/undefined this values to "the" global object? Boris Zbarsky
• [WebIDL] Eliminating [ImplicitThis] in favor of [Global] Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Simon Pieters
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Simon Pieters
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Arthur Barstow

Friday, 20 September 2013

• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Simon Pieters
• RE: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Domenic Denicola
• RE: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Travis Leithead
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Simon Pieters
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Arthur Barstow

Thursday, 19 September 2013

• [Bug 23295] "attribute" serializer types missing from grammar bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23296] New: Serializer grammar productions missing closing ";" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23295] New: "attribute" serializer types missing from grammar bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Dominique Hazael-Massieux

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

• Re: Structured clones Dmitry Lomov
• Re: Structured clones Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 23276] "If creating is false and O does not implement a..." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23276] "If creating is false and O does not implement a..." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23277] New: Broken references to EcmaScript spec bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23276] New: "If creating is false and O does not implement a..." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

• [Bug 23266] New: ExtendedAttributeTypePair grammar appears wrong bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Need reviewers for Cameron's Web IDL tests Arthur Barstow

Monday, 16 September 2013

• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 13 September 2013

• Re: Maplike Chris Wilson
• Re: Maplike Brandon Benvie
• Re: Maplike Tab Atkins Jr.
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Maplike Chris Wilson
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20020] Support subclassing Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20020] Support subclassing Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 12 September 2013

• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20020] Support subclassing Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20020] Support subclassing Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23225] New: Let's start using class, not interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

• Re: URLQuery / FormData Ian Hickson
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Ian Hickson
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Rick Waldron
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Rick Waldron
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Brandon Benvie
• Re: Reconciling handling of optional arguments and handling of default values across ES and webidl Boris Zbarsky
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 23202] New: Add @@unscopeables sugar bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jonas Sicking
• RE: URLQuery / FormData Domenic Denicola
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• RE: URLQuery / FormData Domenic Denicola
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jonas Sicking
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jonas Sicking
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jonas Sicking
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Tab Atkins Jr.

Monday, 9 September 2013

• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jason Orendorff
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jonas Sicking
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Jonas Sicking
• RE: URLQuery / FormData Domenic Denicola
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Rick Waldron
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren
• Re: URLQuery / FormData Tab Atkins Jr.
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• URLQuery / FormData Anne van Kesteren

Sunday, 8 September 2013

• Re: Promises: final steps Aymeric Vitte
• Re: Promises: final steps Anne van Kesteren

Friday, 6 September 2013

• Re: Promises: final steps Brendan Eich
• Re: Promises: final steps Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [whatwg] [[GetOwnProperty]] for named properties of the Window object Boris Zbarsky

Thursday, 5 September 2013

• Re: Promises: final steps Kevin Smith
• Re: Promises: final steps Mark Miller
• Re: Promises: final steps Kevin Smith
• Re: Promises: final steps Mark Miller
• Re: Promises: final steps John Barton
• RE: Promises: final steps Domenic Denicola
• Re: Promises: final steps Kevin Smith

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

• Re: Structured clones Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Promises: final steps Alex Russell
• Re: Promises: final steps Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Promises: final steps Kris Kowal
• RE: Promises: final steps Domenic Denicola
• Re: Promises: final steps Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Promises: final steps Kevin Smith
• Re: Promises: final steps Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Promises: final steps Kevin Smith

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Promises: final steps Tab Atkins Jr.
• Promises: final steps Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 23133] Hook up interface object proto chains as if they were ES6 classes bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23133] New: Hook up interface object proto chains as if they were ES6 classes bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Another case of wanting to a test like isArray, this time on exceptions Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Another case of wanting to a test like isArray, this time on exceptions Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: document.body.appendChild(promiseForNode) Mark S. Miller
• Re: document.body.appendChild(promiseForNode) Boris Zbarsky
• Another case of wanting to a test like isArray, this time on exceptions Boris Zbarsky

Monday, 2 September 2013

• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: document.body.appendChild(promiseForNode) David Bruant
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: document.body.appendChild(promiseForNode) Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Boris Zbarsky
• document.body.appendChild(promiseForNode) David Bruant
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.

Sunday, 1 September 2013

• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Brendan Eich
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.

Saturday, 31 August 2013

• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Bjoern Hoehrmann

Friday, 30 August 2013

• Unordered setsmaps, for when ordering is hard/expensive/unwanted? Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Parameter to promise constructor Mark S. Miller
• Re: Parameter to promise constructor Tab Atkins Jr.
• Parameter to promise constructor Domenic Denicola

Thursday, 29 August 2013

• Re: Promises - review of use in Network Service Discovery draft? Rich Tibbett

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Promises - review of use in Network Service Discovery draft? Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23087] New: Undefined variable use in the overload resolution algorithm bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Joshua Bell
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Joshua Bell
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Joshua Bell
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Joshua Bell
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Feature-detectable API extensions? Brendan Eich
• Feature-detectable API extensions? Joshua Bell
• Re: [WebIDL] Would it make sense to add annotations for "creates a new object each time" and "always returns the same object"? Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 23077] New: "a value (matching DefaultValue)" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23076] New: Change "float" in examples to "double" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23074] New: " If a “forEach” operation is defined, then Call..." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 26 August 2013

• Re: [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript Garrett Smith

Sunday, 25 August 2013

• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 23056] New: Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 22 August 2013

• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? Boris Zbarsky

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22947] Operation functions should not have a prototype property bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22947] Operation functions should not have a prototype property bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Bug 22947] Operation functions should not have a prototype property Mark S. Miller
• [Bug 22947] Operation functions should not have a prototype property bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Janusz Majnert

Monday, 19 August 2013

• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API François REMY
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API François REMY
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API François REMY
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• URL.domainToASCII / URL.domainToUnicode Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Iterator protocol for DOM objects with indexed getter David Bruant
• Re: Iterator protocol for DOM objects with indexed getter Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Janusz Majnert
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Janusz Majnert
• [Bug 22947] Operation functions should not have a prototype property bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Jake Verbaten
• RE: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Francois REMY
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Jake Verbaten

Sunday, 18 August 2013

• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Jake Verbaten
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Brian Kardell
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Brian Kardell
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Alex Russell
• RE: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory François REMY
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• RE: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Francois REMY
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Alex Russell
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory Brian Kardell
• Re: Iterator protocol for DOM objects with indexed getter David Bruant
• Re: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• Re: Iterator protocol for DOM objects with indexed getter Anne van Kesteren
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API François REMY
• RE: Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory François REMY

Saturday, 17 August 2013

• Iterator protocol for DOM objects with indexed getter David Bruant
• Non-agression pact for the JS runtime namespace territory David Bruant
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking

Friday, 16 August 2013

• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Janusz Majnert

Thursday, 15 August 2013

• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API François REMY
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Domenic Denicola
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Domenic Denicola

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

• [Bug 22947] New: Operation functions should not have a prototype property bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? Ian Hickson
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: test suite for Web IDL v1 Arthur Barstow

Sunday, 11 August 2013

• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Domenic Denicola
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Domenic Denicola
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Domenic Denicola

Saturday, 10 August 2013

• Storage Relationships (was Block Level API) Brian Kardell
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API David Bruant
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Block Level API Brian Kardell
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brandon Benvie
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API François REMY
• RE: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Domenic Denicola
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Brendan Eich
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Allen Wirfs-Brock
• [Bug 22912] New: fix [[Delete]] due to how it's changed in ES6 bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 9 August 2013

• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Rick Waldron
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Rick Waldron
• Re: Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• Request for feedback: Filesystem API Jonas Sicking
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22507] Need to define behaviour for setting properties on named properties objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21929] named properties object should disallow definition of non-configurable properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 8 August 2013

• [Bug 20481] Grammar Fixes needed: Dominique's feedback + Microsoft's feedback bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Jonas Sicking
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Elements (extends Array) Domenic Denicola
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Elements (extends Array) Domenic Denicola
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Cameron McCormack
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Elements (extends Array) Cameron McCormack

Wednesday, 7 August 2013

• Re: Outline of exactly how @@create works? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Outline of exactly how @@create works? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Mark S. Miller
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Tab Atkins Jr.
• RE: Outline of exactly how @@create works? Domenic Denicola
• Re: Outline of exactly how @@create works? Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Outline of exactly how @@create works? Domenic Denicola
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Domenic Denicola
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Domenic Denicola
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Travis Leithead
• Elements (extends Array) Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Anne van Kesteren
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Domenic Denicola

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Boris Zbarsky
• Re: IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Rick Waldron
• RE: IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Domenic Denicola
• Re: IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Anne van Kesteren
• Re: IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Allen Wirfs-Brock
• IDL enumeration & String.prototype.normalize Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 22886] 3.2.6: italicized "i-1" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22887] 4.7.4: "listed in description" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22882] 4.5.1.1: "an arguments" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20453] 3.1: two questions re underscore removal bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22887] 4.7.4: "listed in description" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22888] New: 4.2.{14,15}: "has the same numeric value" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22886] 3.2.6: italicized "i-1" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22882] 4.5.1.1: "an arguments" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20453] 3.1: two questions re underscore removal bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16537] Interface types - Implements is ambiguous bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22156] Allow trailing commas in Web IDL lists bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 5 August 2013

• [Bug 22887] New: 4.7.4: "listed in description" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22886] New: 3.2.6: italicized "i-1" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22156] Allow trailing commas in Web IDL lists bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20653] need a way for Web Components to cause new interface objects to exist dynamically bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• [Bug 22883] New: 4.5.1.1: "the argument at index i" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17508] Let enum lists end with a comma bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22882] New: 4.5.1.1: "an arguments" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17508] Let enum lists end with a comma bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22156] Allow trailing commas in Web IDL lists bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17508] Let enum lists end with a comma bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 19778] Wrong regex for integer bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Sunday, 4 August 2013

• [Bug 22872] 4.8: bad link for "single operation callback interface" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22871] 4.6.4: "does not to implement" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20444] 4.*: "descriptor { ... }" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20452] 4.2.16: extraneous "the" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22870] 4.2.*: "the value of dictionary member" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20453] 3.1: two questions re underscore removal bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22665] Wrong example for [TreatNonCallableAsNull] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22845] Consider moving the overload resolution algorithm into its own section bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22392] maybe define .name for Function objects corresponding to operations/attributes bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22509] Some way to express array as readonly and fixed length bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22625] "If x < 253 or x > 253, then throw a TypeError." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21295] overload resolution: are DOMString and sequence<T> distinguishable now? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22874] #es-stringifier algorithm shouldn't use ToString(V) bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22874] New: #es-stringifier algorithm shouldn't use ToString(V) bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22507] Need to define behaviour for setting properties on named properties objects bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22506] Named properties object should probably not be a function object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22312] Typo? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22156] Allow trailing commas in Web IDL lists bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21929] named properties object should disallow definition of non-configurable properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21670] Clarify that typeof InterfaceObject should be "function" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21669] Callable interface objects should be instance of Function bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21640] Dictionaries and callbacks should be distinguishable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20777] Getting a property from the global scope polluter ends up in an infinite loop bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20653] need a way for Web Components to cause new interface objects to exist dynamically bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 16833] consider always exposing a "length" property for objects with indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20561] Objects supporting indexed properties bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20528] Definition of [[Prototype]] for the interface prototype object is confusing bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20527] Comment about NamedPropertiesObject is incorrect bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20481] Grammar Fixes needed: Dominique's feedback + Microsoft's feedback bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20478] Grammar allows "static;" as a valid operation bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20475] Grammar allows "- Infinity", but not "- 1" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20453] 3.1: two questions re underscore removal bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20452] 4.2.16: extraneous "the" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20444] 4.*: "descriptor { ... }" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22872] 4.8: bad link for "single operation callback interface" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22872] New: 4.8: bad link for "single operation callback interface" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22871] 4.6.4: "does not to implement" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22871] New: 4.6.4: "does not to implement" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22870] 4.2.*: "the value of dictionary member" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22870] 4.2.*: "the value of dictionary member" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22870] New: 4.2.*: "the value of dictionary member" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Saturday, 3 August 2013

• [Bug 20443] 4.4.6: "is not of the enumeration’s values" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20440] 4.4.1.1: "of it type list" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20419] 4.2.24.2: missing "then"? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20422] 4.2.21: "then then" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20441] algorithms not marked as such bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated Bjoern Hoehrmann
• [Bug 17508] Let enum lists end with a comma bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21589] SelectionMode enum should not have a trailing comma bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20443] 4.4.6: "is not of the enumeration’s values" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20442] 4.2.24: <ul> should be <ol> bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20440] 4.4.1.1: "of it type list" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20439] 4.4.6: <span class="desc"> bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20422] 4.2.21: "then then" bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20419] 4.2.24.2: missing "then"? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 18362] Make stringifiers not take into account expandos bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [WebIDL] Should stringifiers use [[Get]] and [[Call]] or call the canonical getter/function? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 18352] Note about Object.prototype.toString is unclear bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 17508] Let enum lists end with a comma bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 19778] Wrong regex for integer bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22866] New: remove Object.prototype.toString override and use ES6 @@toStringTag instead bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22014] newly created exception objects should have the exception prototype interface object as their [[Prototype]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22013] property enumeration section should mention named property visibility bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Boris Zbarsky
• [Bug 22006] need to define that the .length of a stringifier's Function object is 0 bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Cameron McCormack
• Re: [webidl] Spec for callback interface interface objects is self-contradictory in places Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [webidl] Spec for callback interface interface objects is self-contradictory in places Cameron McCormack

Friday, 2 August 2013

• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Jonas Sicking
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: [webidl] Spec for callback interface interface objects is self-contradictory in places Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Jonas Sicking
• [Bug 22859] New: use built-in ToUint8 etc. abstract operations bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21270] Introduce syntax for getters that keep returning the same object bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [WebIDL] editorial: unrestricted double and precision Cameron McCormack
• Re: Why do we allow overloads on legacycallers? Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 22858] New: use @hasInstance instance of [[HasInstance]] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [WebIDL] Should stringifiers use [[Get]] and [[Call]] or call the canonical getter/function? Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Definition of "single operation interface" questions Cameron McCormack
• Re: Interaction of non-configurable attributes and named getters Cameron McCormack
• Re: [webidl] Spec for callback interface interface objects is self-contradictory in places Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Allowing specifications to opt in to throwing on sets of enumerated attributes to invalid values Cameron McCormack
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 1 August 2013

• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Jonas Sicking
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Marcos Caceres
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces David Bruant
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Marcos Caceres
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Juan Ignacio Dopazo
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Tab Atkins Jr.
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Juan Ignacio Dopazo
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces David Bruant
• Re: Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces Marcos Caceres
• Forbid constants on [noInterfaceObject] interfaces David Bruant
• [Bug 22845] New: Consider moving the overload resolution algorithm into its own section bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• IO streams Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Jonas Sicking
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Allen Wirfs-Brock
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 29 July 2013

• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Jonas Sicking

Sunday, 28 July 2013

• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Cameron McCormack
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Anne van Kesteren
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Jonas Sicking
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22824] New: Remove Date from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Jonas Sicking
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? Norbert Lindenberg
• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Should ByteString be a serializable type? Boris Zbarsky

Saturday, 27 July 2013

• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Friday, 26 July 2013

• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 25 July 2013

• [Bug 22808] Throw if object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22808] New: Throw if you object is constructed without new bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22806] New: Why special case Date and RegExp in #es-sequence bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 24 July 2013

• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Promises - review of use in Network Service Discovery draft? Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22346] Security: When invoking a method, getter, or setter on an object using the property descriptor of another, we need to do a security check bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Tuesday, 23 July 2013

• [Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22646] So if we want to say on a per-object basis whether it ought to be exposed to workers (which I think is useful) lets introduce "exposed to document environments", "exposed to worker environments", and [...] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Juan Ignacio Dopazo
• Re: [WebIDL] Callback functions and callback interfaces should allow optional arguments sanely Boris Zbarsky
• Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Callback functions and callback interfaces should allow optional arguments sanely Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Would it make sense to add annotations for "creates a new object each time" and "always returns the same object"? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Extended attribute grammar too complex? Cameron McCormack
• Re: Small grammar problem Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Would it make sense to add annotations for "creates a new object each time" and "always returns the same object"? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: WebIDL grammar allows "static;", which seems broken Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Would it make sense to add annotations for "creates a new object each time" and "always returns the same object"? Cameron McCormack
• Re: WebIDL grammar allows "static;", which seems broken Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Interaction of dictionaries and platform objects is a bit weird Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Interaction of dictionaries and platform objects is a bit weird Cameron McCormack
• Re: Interaction of dictionaries and platform objects is a bit weird Cameron McCormack
• Re: WebIDL grammar allows "static;", which seems broken Cameron McCormack
• Re: [WebIDL] Type conversions triggered by "any" can be lossy Cameron McCormack

Monday, 22 July 2013

• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Rick Waldron
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Promises "if not omitted" language Domenic Denicola
• Re: Promises "if not omitted" language Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Promises "if not omitted" language Domenic Denicola
• Promises "if not omitted" language Juan Ignacio Dopazo
• Re: "var" declarations shadowing properties from Window.prototype Cameron McCormack
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Cameron McCormack

Sunday, 21 July 2013

• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky

Saturday, 20 July 2013

• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Domenic Denicola
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Domenic Denicola
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Anne van Kesteren
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky
• Re: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Jonas Sicking
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Domenic Denicola
• RE: Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Travis Leithead
• Maybe we should think about Interface.isInterface functions again Boris Zbarsky

Friday, 19 July 2013

• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Object sharing across globals Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: Object sharing across globals Dimitri Glazkov
• Re: Object sharing across globals Tab Atkins Jr.

Thursday, 18 July 2013

• Object sharing across globals Anne van Kesteren

Tuesday, 16 July 2013

• [Bug 22691] Remove ByteString from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Anne van Kesteren
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Bjoern Hoehrmann
• [Bug 22691] New: Remove ByteString from WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Norbert Lindenberg

Sunday, 14 July 2013

• [Bug 22665] New: Wrong example for [TreatNonCallableAsNull] bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Thursday, 11 July 2013

• [Bug 22358] Add a "this is the global" annotation bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Anne van Kesteren
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Robin Berjon

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Anne van Kesteren
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Norbert Lindenberg
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22391] Sequence or Array bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Anne van Kesteren
• [Bug 21295] overload resolution: are DOMString and sequence<T> distinguishable now? bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Robin Berjon
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Anne van Kesteren
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Robin Berjon
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Jonas Sicking
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Jonas Sicking
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Jonas Sicking
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Boris Zbarsky
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Norbert Lindenberg
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Jonas Sicking
• Re: ByteString in Web IDL Boris Zbarsky
• ByteString in Web IDL Norbert Lindenberg

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21591] String constant on NavigatorID is invalid per WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 21591] String constant on NavigatorID is invalid per WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22625] New: "If x < 253 or x > 253, then throw a TypeError." bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Monday, 8 July 2013

• [Bug 22600] New: Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: URL API Robin Berjon
• Re: URL API Tab Atkins Jr.
• RE: URL API Domenic Denicola
• URL API Anne van Kesteren

Thursday, 4 July 2013

• [Bug 21591] String constant on NavigatorID is invalid per WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Wednesday, 3 July 2013

• Re: [whatwg] [Canvas][WebIDL] Canvas .addText takes NoInterfaceObject argument Dirk Schulze
• [Bug 21591] String constant on NavigatorID is invalid per WebIDL bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [whatwg] [Canvas][WebIDL] Canvas .addText takes NoInterfaceObject argument Ian Hickson
• [Canvas][WebIDL] Canvas .addText takes NoInterfaceObject argument Dirk Schulze

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

• [Bug 20008] allow [Unforgeable] on an interface bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• Re: [webidl] Spec is unclear on what it means to support indexed/named properties Cameron McCormack
• Re: [whatwg] Spec for location object needs to make some properties unforgeable; need supporting WebIDL changes Cameron McCormack
• Re: What should happen when [Unforgeable] is used on a consequential interface of an ancestor? Cameron McCormack
• Re: What should happen when [Unforgeable] is used on a consequential interface of an ancestor? Boris Zbarsky
• Re: What should happen when [Unforgeable] is used on a consequential interface of an ancestor? Cameron McCormack

Monday, 1 July 2013

• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

Last message date: Monday, 30 September 2013 19:44:44 UTC