On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Blobs are views on immutable data. WebKit's implementation will reject
reads on a Blob, which points to a file that has since been modified. (This
should be part of the spec if it is not.)
This suggests some answers to
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
Hello All,
In the current FileAPI Writer spec a BlobBuilder can be used to build a
series of blobs like so:
var bb = BlobBuilder();
bb.append(foo);
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Darin's position is leaning toward not breaking compatibility with what
Chrome has shipped for a while. That's one consideration. It can't be the
This is a reply to an old message
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0087.html)
and I don't know if this goes to the right thread.
Would Server Sent Events be more or less efficient that Web Sockets?
Does one of these use less resources than the other? Or, are the
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another advantage of dropping the memory automatically is that you
don't need to copy any data into the Blob. Instead you can just make
the Blob take ownership of whatever memory buffers you've built up
during the various
On 2011-04-13 04:43, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Lachlan Hunt:
This seems to differ from the algorithm given for T[], which
requires that the object be either an array host object or a native
object, which would not handle the JQuery case. The sequenceT
type seems more generic than that as the
On 2011-04-13 06:32, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Lachlan Hunt:
OK. Then I'm not sure what the practical difference between the
Element[] or sequenceElement would be then, nor which one to use.
... the only difference is that with Element[] you can distinguish
between null and an array of
On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
Agreed. I certainly don't assert that whatever Chrome ships first should be
regarded as standard. Our rapid release schedule depends on platform
features beginning life with a vendor prefix. I believe that we goofed in
this case by not
I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Submission
The public-webapps-testsu...@w3.org list is now operational:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/
Please use this list for WebApps' testing discussions.
To subscribe to this list, send a subscribe e-mail to:
public-webapps-testsuite-requ...@w3.org
For discussions
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
wrote:
Darin's position is leaning toward not breaking compatibility with
11 matches
Mail list logo
