public-script-coord@w3.org from January to March 2014 by author

Allen Wirfs-Brock

• Re: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Wednesday, 26 February)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Typeconverting Exotics (Sunday, 12 January)

Anne van Kesteren

• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: FYI: Navigation Error Logging (Tuesday, 11 February)

Boris Zbarsky

• Re: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value (Thursday, 6 March)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value (Wednesday, 5 March)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Wednesday, 26 February)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Typeconverting Exotics (Monday, 13 January)
• Re: Typeconverting Exotics (Sunday, 12 January)
• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Friday, 10 January)
• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Thursday, 9 January)
• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Thursday, 9 January)
• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Thursday, 9 January)

Brendan Eich

• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Typeconverting Exotics (Monday, 13 January)

bugzilla@jessica.w3.org

• [Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? (Wednesday, 26 March)
• [Bug 25138] "Invoking callback functions" (Monday, 24 March)
• [Bug 25138] "Invoking callback functions" (Monday, 24 March)
• [Bug 25138] New: "Invoking callback functions" (Monday, 24 March)
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated (Monday, 24 March)
• [Bug 24581] Fix ByteString type & [EnsureUTF16] flag story (Thursday, 20 March)
• [Bug 25051] New: "The return type of the operation is given by th..." (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25050] Should Constructors behave like operations or (attribute) setters? (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25050] New: "throw an exception" (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25049] New: disallow nullable Promise<T> types (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 25048] New: consider whether an IDL attribute of type Promise<T> should catch exceptions and wrap them up as a rejected Promise like they are for operations (Friday, 14 March)
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable (Wednesday, 12 March)
• [Bug 25025] New: Named creators with [OverrideBuiltins] don't work right as the spec is written now (Wednesday, 12 March)
• [Bug 25015] "asynchromous" (Wednesday, 12 March)
• [Bug 25015] New: "asynchromous" (Wednesday, 12 March)
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable (Tuesday, 11 March)
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable (Tuesday, 11 March)
• [Bug 24959] New: "Exposed=Window,Worker" will be parsed to 2 extended attributes (Thursday, 6 March)
• [Bug 21740] Guidance on DOMError and promises (Wednesday, 19 February)
• [Bug 24652] Deal with associated Realms (Thursday, 13 February)
• [Bug 24652] Deal with associated Realms (Thursday, 13 February)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 13 February)
• [Bug 24652] New: Deal with associated Realms (Thursday, 13 February)
• [Bug 23367] Move exceptions into IDL (Thursday, 13 February)
• [Bug 20158] Unrestricted typed dictionary (Thursday, 13 February)
• [Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators (Wednesday, 12 February)
• [Bug 17713] Exceptions thrown from event handlers should not be propagated (Wednesday, 12 February)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Wednesday, 12 February)
• [Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators (Wednesday, 12 February)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Monday, 10 February)
• [Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess (Saturday, 8 February)
• [Bug 24581] New: Fix ByteString type & [EnsureUTF16] flag story (Friday, 7 February)
• [Bug 24580] New: "Let cast be the original value of %Promise%.cast. " (Friday, 7 February)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Friday, 7 February)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Friday, 7 February)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 6 February)
• [Bug 23367] Move exceptions into IDL (Monday, 3 February)
• [Bug 18362] Make stringifiers not take into account expandos (Monday, 3 February)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 30 January)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 30 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Wednesday, 29 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Wednesday, 29 January)
• [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 [...] (Wednesday, 29 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Wednesday, 29 January)
• [Bug 22858] use @@hasInstance instead of [[HasInstance]] (Wednesday, 29 January)
• [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 [...] (Wednesday, 29 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 22522] WebIDL, error handling, and promises (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 21422] Generic Promise type notation (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [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 [...] (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [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 [...] (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [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 [...] (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [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 [...] (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24418] "langauge" (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24418] New: "langauge" (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 21740] Guidance on DOMError and promises (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24417] [Exposed] on an interface that is "implements"ed into another should mean something (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [Bug 24417] New: [Exposed] on an interface that is "implements"ed into another should mean something (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [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 [...] (Tuesday, 28 January)
• [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 [...] (Monday, 27 January)
• [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 [...] (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 23277] Broken references to EcmaScript spec (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 23056] Function's length property is inconsistent with EcmaScript (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 17648] [Awaiting ES6] Add iterators (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 22912] fix [[Delete]] due to how it's changed in ES6 (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 22507] Need to define behaviour for setting properties on named properties objects (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24413] New: consider adding Interface.isInterface() functions (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24412] consider throwing RangeError instead of TypeError for invalid enum values (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24412] New: consider throwing RangeError instead of TypeError for invalid enum values (Monday, 27 January)
• [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 [...] (Monday, 27 January)
• [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 [...] (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 22691] Remove ByteString from WebIDL (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 20458] 4.2.22: converting IDL value to IDL type? (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 22320] Form's supported property names should perhaps not be enumerable (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24403] WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 24403] New: WebIDL callbacks should probably default to pushing a new entry settings object (Monday, 27 January)
• [Bug 23266] ExtendedAttributeTypePair grammar appears wrong (Sunday, 26 January)
• [Bug 23087] Undefined variable use in the overload resolution algorithm (Sunday, 26 January)
• [Bug 22600] Need a way to make navigator.plugins supported named properties not enumerable (Sunday, 26 January)
• [Bug 22358] Add a "this is the global" annotation (Sunday, 26 January)
• [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 [...] (Saturday, 25 January)
• [Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess (Friday, 24 January)
• [Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess (Friday, 24 January)
• [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 [...] (Friday, 24 January)
• [Bug 22874] #es-stringifier algorithm shouldn't use ToString(V) (Friday, 24 January)
• [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 [...] (Friday, 24 January)
• [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 [...] (Friday, 24 January)
• [Bug 22874] #es-stringifier algorithm shouldn't use ToString(V) (Friday, 24 January)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 23 January)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 23 January)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 23 January)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [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 [...] (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Thursday, 23 January)
• [Bug 23682] Fix the current [ArrayClass], [] and sequence<T> mess (Thursday, 23 January)
• [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 [...] (Friday, 17 January)
• [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 [...] (Friday, 17 January)
• [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 [...] (Friday, 17 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Friday, 17 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Friday, 17 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 16 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 16 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 16 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 16 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Thursday, 16 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Wednesday, 15 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Wednesday, 15 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 14 January)
• [Bug 24291] Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 14 January)
• [Bug 24291] New: Add a Promise type to WebIDL, and make it not distinguishable from anything (Tuesday, 14 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Tuesday, 14 January)
• [Bug 20567] Change [[Prototype]] for concept-node-adopt? (Tuesday, 14 January)
• [Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 23701] Remove TreatUndefinedAs (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 24248] Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Friday, 10 January)
• [Bug 24248] New: Inconsistency between WebIDL callback function default this and JS strict mode default this (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Thursday, 9 January)
• [Bug 24241] Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Wednesday, 8 January)
• [Bug 24241] New: Adopt the ES6 "safe integer" range for (unsigned) long longs (Wednesday, 8 January)

Cameron McCormack

• Re: [WebIDL] Would it make sense to add annotations for "creates a new object each time" and "always returns the same object"? (Monday, 27 January)
• Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? (Monday, 27 January)

David Bruant

• Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics (Monday, 10 February)
• Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics (Saturday, 8 February)

Domenic Denicola

• RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)

Erik Arvidsson

• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Thursday, 9 January)
• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Thursday, 9 January)
• Re: Spec for [Global] does not seem to be quite web-compatible, and none of the UAs are really compatible with each other (Thursday, 9 January)

Garrett Smith

• Date Update? (Sunday, 19 January)
• Typeconverting Exotics (Sunday, 12 January)

Ian Hickson

• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)

Jasper St. Pierre

• Re: [whatwg] Date Update? (Sunday, 19 January)

Jonas Sicking

• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• RE: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)

Mark S. Miller

• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Associating new objects with globals: how to best do it? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Removing the concept of "optional any" (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Typeconverting Exotics (Sunday, 12 January)
• Re: Enforcing (unsigned) long long ranges (Wednesday, 8 January)
• Re: Enforcing (unsigned) long long ranges (Wednesday, 8 January)

Michael van Ouwerkerk

• partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Thursday, 13 February)

Norbert Lindenberg

• Re: [whatwg] Date Update? (Monday, 20 January)

Philippe Le Hegaret

• FYI: Navigation Error Logging (Tuesday, 11 February)

Rick Waldron

• Re: [whatwg] Date Update? (Sunday, 19 January)

Sigbjorn Finne

• Enforcing (unsigned) long long ranges (Wednesday, 8 January)

Tab Atkins Jr.

• Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject] (Friday, 14 February)

Tom Van Cutsem

• Re: Cross-origin windows and how to explain them in ECMAScript semantics (Monday, 10 February)

Travis Leithead

• RE: Representing a "dictionary or not present" member in a dictionary return value (Wednesday, 5 March)

Last message date: Wednesday, 26 March 2014 05:08:49 UTC