In other words, the context must precede model selection. Ofcourse, a feature that might be fixed in one setting might be malleable inanother.

From a technical point of view, the IndieWeb people have worked on a number of simple, easy to implement protocols, which provide the ability for web services to interact openly with each other, but in a way that allows for a website owner to define policy over what content they will accept.

“The one inhibition I felt using AnswerGarden [was] knowing that the experts were typically busy and workingon projects more important than my little application programs....

Our argument issimply that for working, learning, and innovating to thrive collectively depends onlinking these three, in theory and in practice, more closely, more realistically, andmore reflectively than is generally the case at present.

If anyone can completely refactor the JSON Schema description for OpenAPI v3.0 to accurately describe the schema in all its glory, without using this new keyword, then please do so, but I would kindly ask you to test the theory first.

I suppose you know he wanted to marry Anne

Overriding the ActiveStorage controllers to add authentication or customize behavior is a bit tedious because it requires either: using custom routes, which means losing the nice url helpers provided by active storage copy pasting the routes in the application routes.rb, which is not very DRY.

it should be normal for production apps to add authentication and authorization to their ActiveStorage controllers. Unfortunately, there are 2 possible ways to achieve it currently: Not drawing ActiveStorage routes and do everything by yourself Override/monkey patch ActiveStorage controllers None of them is ideal because in the end you can't benefit from Rails upgrades (bug fixes, etc) so the intention of this PR is to let people define a parent controller (inspired by Devise, maybe @carlosantoniodasilva can tell us his experience on this feature) so that people can add authentication and authorization in a single place and still benefit from the default controllers.

The type for an item is given as the value of an itemtype attribute on the same element as the itemscope attribute.

Moving forward I'd rather see {#await} being removed than adding more {#await}. But that's just from my experience and I'm sure there are use-cases for it.

Babel implements multiple variants of this proposal to help TC39 test and gather feedback from the community. As with all proposals, expect changes in the future.

The simple problem that I see with fragment identifiers is that their existence and functionality relies completely on the developer rather than the browser. Yes, the browser needs to read and interpret the identifier and identify the matching fragment. But if the developer doesn’t include any id attributes in the HTML of the page, then there will be no identifiable fragments. Do you see why this is a problem? Whether the developer has coded identifiers into the HTML has nothing to do with whether or not the page actually has fragments. Virtually every web page has fragments. In fact, sectioning content as defined in the HTML5 spec implies as much. Every element on the page that can contain content can theoretically be categorized as a “fragment”.

Sure sometimes my changes get rejected, but it almost always comes with a reason why and I can work together with the maintainer to come up with a sensible solution to my issue.

proposes adding a grid-cell pseudo so you can add (responsive) decorative elements to grids without having to add empty elements to your page.

#grid::grid-area(1 / 2 / 3 / 4) { background-color: red;

It took us a long time for everyone to get on the same page about the requirements spanning frameworks, tooling and native implementations. Only after pushing in various concrete directions did we get a full understanding of the requirements which this proposal aims to meet.

If the document is uncontroversial and agreement is reached quickly it might be committed directly with the "accepted" status. Likewise, if the proposal is rejected the status shall be "rejected". When a document is rejected a member of the core team should append a section describing the reasons for rejection.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

Another possible syntax is {#slot bar}<Foo/>{/slot}, which would also allow a bunch of DOM nodes and components inside the slot, without them needing to be from a single component

The RFC repo (where the reaction was strongly positive) is the place for discussion about what features to add; the decision has been made.

instead of closing immediately, could we discuss some syntaxes that might work? I'm hardly an expert, so I'm not sure I can propose a syntax, but I can try to get the ball rolling:

I'm suggesting there should be a way to write lifecycle related code that also responds to changing props, like how useEffect works. I think how React handles this could be a good source of inspiration.

Happy to discuss all the concrete proposals on how to make things better.

Insisting on a specific implementation, rather than proposing a clear problem, suggesting a possible solution, and “not being married” to your initial preferred solution.

The feature is highly likely to be implemented, the API and implementation are the only real topics of discussion right now.

Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.

Syntax-wise, I would like to be able to pass id, style and class DOM attributes as well as (ideally) svelte props to whatever the slot was replaced with, so prefixing everything with attr in the slot that should be passed sounds like a good idea. Examples: <slot attr:class=“test” attr:class:active={true} /> or <slot attr:style=“color: red” attr:id=“henlo” />

Yarn also has an RFC process which may offer a better discussion platform compared to this GitHub issue.

Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow. Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Yarn core team. The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent and controlled path for new features to enter the project.

Sometimes, the line between 'bug' and 'feature' is a hard one to draw. Generally, a feature is anything that adds new behavior, while a bug is anything that causes incorrect behavior. Sometimes, the core team will have to make a judgment call.

Make a proposal If you need to decide something as a team, make a concrete proposal instead of calling a meeting to get everyone's input. Having a proposal will be a much more effective use of everyone's time. Every meeting should be a review of a proposal.

Under the Sanders proposal, for example, cost control is secured by a global budget and by imposing Medicare payment rates. Blahous, a former Medicare trustee, estimates that under the Sanders proposal, provider payments would be cut by an estimated 40 percent by usingMedicare payment rates. Using Medicare payment rates throughout the entire American health care economy would hurt patients. Already, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that “nearly half of hospitals, approximately two-thirds of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and over 8 percent of home health agencies (HHAs) would have negative total facility margins.”

With only an hour face-to-face meeting with my friend Claude Tregoat we set up connections for 500 students in a project which would become to be known as CLAVIER.

Non-confirmed partner proposals

and when his approbation of Rosamond's engagement was asked for, he gave it with astonishing facility, passing at once to general remarks on the desirableness of matrimony for young men and maidens, and apparently deducing from the whole the appropriateness of a little more punch.

and speak less incompletely. Rosamond had to make her little confession, and he poured out words of gratitude and tenderness with impulsive lavishment.