Editorial Update: Signature Properties

fyi, I've updated Signature Properties editors draft to include links to a standalone Signature example XML file showing all properties (without crypto) , and standalone XML Schema file (thanks to Scott Cantor for getting the schema right). No change to the Role or Profile as we have had

Introducing Rokesh Jankie, for the Web Applications groups

Hi, on request of Arthur Bartstow, I will introduce myself to the group. My name is Rokesh Jankie and I'm the lead of a product called QAFE. In QAFE we have developed a language called QAML, QAFE's Markup Language and allows you to create web (Web2.0) applications with interaction with your

[UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

[[ In particular, the user agent should not add the HTTP headers: User-Agent, Accept, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, or Accept-Charset ]] This seems a bit overly constrictive. Maybe we should send Accept: */*, etc? More generally, I suspect the requirements in Section 3.2 violate various

File API: Blob and underlying file changes.

Hi, Does the Blob, which is obtained as File (so it refers to an actual file on disk) track the changes in the underlying file and 'mutates', or does it represent the 'snapshot' of the file, or does it become 'invalid'? Today, if a user selects a file using input type=file, and then the file on

Re: [UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

One more question: the draft doesn't seem to provide any way to generate a uniform request. Are we planning to have another specification for an API for generating these requests? Adam On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: [[ In particular, the user agent

Re: [UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: [[ In particular, the user agent should not add the HTTP headers: User-Agent, Accept, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, or Accept-Charset ]] This seems a bit overly constrictive.  Maybe we should send Accept: */*, etc?

Re: [UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: One more question: the draft doesn't seem to provide any way to generate a uniform request.  Are we planning to have another specification for an API for generating these requests? Similar to CORS, UMP is just the security

Re: [UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: There are two uses for this requirement: 1. On browsers that don't yet support any cross-domain API, it would be nice to emulate support by routing the request through the requestor's Origin server. To help ensure the

Re: [UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: There are two uses for this requirement: 1. On browsers that don't yet support any cross-domain API, it would be nice to emulate support by routing the

Re: [UMP] Feedback on UMP from a quick read

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: [... Requiring uniform responses to redirects ...] It's a good thing to question, since this feature is a relaxation of the model, but it seems valuable

Re: File API: Blob and underlying file changes.

Adding reply from Jonas Sicking from anther list (which I used first by mistake :( ) Technically, you should send this email to the webapps mailing list, since that is where this spec is being developed. That said, this is a really hard problem, and one that is hard to test. One thing that we