Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
It is out of scope to define how bindings to features occur.
Why? Where is the scope defined?
The scope (and binding way the binding occurs) is defined in the spec
that is behaving as a feature. Take Geolocation: it clearly states that
binding of the
I agree that pattern implies that you could use regular expressions
(or similar) - this would be a much more flexible way to handle
access, but does have implications (e.g. no need for a 'subdomains'
attribute).
In our system we will be using the access element to prompt the server
admin
On 10/2/09 7:31 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm wondering if that
is a requirement? It seems that the rest of the
I've started working on the official test suite file for PC. Please, no
one touch any of the XML files or test cases or documents related to PC
till I'm done. I'll be working on this over the weekend and probably on
Monday - I will email once I'm done. If you make changes, I will
override
Hi Marcos,
What if the feature name would be hardware://keyboard indicating that a
keyboard is required for the widget
or codec://H.264?
That would be fine.
The above could be merged into device://dev/keyboard and
device://codec/H.264 respectively.
That would be fine too.
(another BTW:
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
What if the feature name would be hardware://keyboard indicating that a
keyboard is required for the widget
or codec://H.264?
That would be fine.
The above could be merged into device://dev/keyboard and
device://codec/H.264 respectively.
That would be
Hi Marcos,
Thanks for the proposal.
I agree with the approach you suggest.
1:1 we may have problems with consensus in this matter.
Thanks,
Marcin
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail:
On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:35 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue
Tracker wrote:
ISSUE-95: PC CR: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with UA
behavior [Widgets]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/95
Raised by: Marcos Caceres
On product: Widgets
On 11-Aug-2009, Marcos
Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm wondering if that is
a requirement? It seems that the rest of the methods are designed to
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.comwrote:
Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 10/2/09 7:31 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:35 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue
Tracker wrote:
ISSUE-95: PC CR: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with UA behavior
[Widgets]
This is an interesting proposal. It addresses a different threat
model than the core STS proposal (because you assume the attacker has
a valid certificate for victim.com).
I think we should resist expanding the scope of the core STS proposal.
There are many different kinds of tokens one could
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 10/2/09 7:31 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length);
14 matches
Mail list logo
