On 7/25/11 5:05 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
From the discussion here, it sounds like there are problems with
WebSockets compression as currently defined.
Yes, this is what I have concluded too (and if we are wrong, I would
appreciate it if someone on the hybi list would please clarify).
The pre-LC comment period for Progress Events resulted in no comments
[1]. As such, Anne proposes a new LC be published and this is a CfC to
do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's
decision to request advancement for
Hi all,
sorry for the late answer, a flu and some other duties kept me from
answering so far.
I agree with Thomas, Adam and David, so please go ahead with the
webappsecwg charter.
The current plan for #3 is to be adopted in websec (as http headers
should be done in IETF) and proceed
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:12:40 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The pre-LC comment period for Progress Events resulted in no comments
[1]. As such, Anne proposes a new LC be published and this is a CfC to
do so:
Opera supports publishing.
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals'
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Sean Hogan shogu...@westnet.com.au wrote:
I assume you are referring to the NodeWatch proposal from Microsoft.
1st draft:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Selector-based_Mutation_Events
2nd draft:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13373
Summary: Privacy: Limit SharedWorker connections to same
top-level domain
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Travis,
I suspect you mean second-level domain (microsoft.com, w3.org) instead of
top-level domain (.com, .net, .org).
Further, I'll observe that consistency with other, similar security policies
would be valuable instead of introducing yet another privacy policy. Adding
public-web-security
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:25:16 -0700, Thomas Roessler t...@w3.org wrote:
I suspect you mean second-level domain (microsoft.com, w3.org) instead
of top-level domain (.com, .net, .org).
Top-level browsing context seems more likely.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Gack, that's what I get for reading the subject and first paragraph.
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C t...@w3.org (@roessler)
On Jul 26, 2011, at 15:29 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:25:16 -0700, Thomas Roessler t...@w3.org wrote:
I suspect you mean second-level domain
Jonas,
Would it be good enough to document the above examples under the
deleteIndex and deleteObjectStore APIs, respectively? Or do you believe we
should add some text to the API descriptions to make this more clear? In
addition, I believe we should expand the explanation for when
10 matches
Mail list logo
