I actually do know of at least one WebKit-only application under
development at Google that may be using this feature (I recently
suggested it to them).
Oh well.
- a
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
Yeah, normally I would have waited longer, but the patch
I think it would look the same, except for instead of monotonically
increasing decimal numbers in the revision column, you'd see random
hexadecimal ones (typically 6-8 digits long).
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Lucas Forschler lforsch...@apple.com wrote:
Could someone enlighten me on what
in
the longer term.
Jon?
Regards,
Maciej
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jon Lee jon...@apple.com wrote:
2. Remove HTML
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jon Lee jon...@apple.com wrote:
2. Remove HTML notifications.
It has been removed from the spec, and we don't intend on ever supporting
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Jon Lee jon...@apple.com wrote:
2. Remove HTML notifications.
It has been removed from the spec, and we don't intend on ever supporting
HTML notifications. I brought this issue up before; is there an update on
this front from any other platforms?
HTML
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
As the goal is to test real world use case I think it can be even better
to simply load the sites from network.
I see only two disadvantage of
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
How can we ensure that all comments are up to do date? For example, suppose
function A calls B, and B calls C. Then in the call site of A, I comment
Because A does X, we do Y. Now suppose for the moment that the behavior
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
It seems like the one line patch to C just broke A. It had a
dependency on the behavior of C that was worth documenting. Now you
have changed C
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.org wrote:
P.S. I agree with you about assertions being better than comments to
document pre- (and post-) conditions (where possible).
Me too (where possible).
- a
___
webkit-dev
Ojan could also autoupdate the extension to be a noop.
- a
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Adam Barth aba...@webkit.org wrote:
Hi webkit-dev,
I just landed a change to bugs.webkit.org to autocomplete email
address for committers and reviewers. If you've been using Ojan's
awesome
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Dan Bernstein m...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 2, 2010, at 4:28 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
29.07.2010, в 10:59, Darin Adler написал(а):
The directory should be eventually be named
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
I don’t buy in to this at all. We have done many successful renaming projects
in the past. The future is bigger than the past and it’s worthwhile to do
maintenance like this.
Okie.
- a
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm not sure what the path is for fetching favicons today. Does
WebCore just implicitly do it, or does it expose the information to
the host, who
I would like to do it. See bug: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37674
Thoughts?
- a
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 15, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
I would like to do it. See bug:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37674
Thoughts?
Seems like a good idea in general.
More specifically, what would
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Well, it's hard to truly have consensus on adding feature without knowing
what it is. That being said, I at least would love to see a more specific
proposal for what we could do with link size.
I want to support bigger
I'm not sure who else besides dhyatt is good to opine on this.
I'd like to change FrameView::adjustSize() to use slightly different
logic so that it works better for applications that want a WebView to
atomically size to the content height.
I'd like feedback on whether this is a good approach,
+1: Hooray for any attempts to tame V8Proxy.
- a
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Adam Barthaba...@webkit.org wrote:
If you're uninterested in the V8 bindings, you can skip this email.
Clocking in at 3255 lines (plus a 682-line header file), V8Proxy is
out of control. Historically a bridge
Hey Patrick,
Extensions logically fall outside the boundary of the rendering
engine, and that is the way we've approached in Chromium, too. But
since Chromium extensions are basically just web pages with a few
extra APIs added, there is a relatively obvious path to compatibility
and even sharing
direction.
- WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov
On 12.04.2009, at 22:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
It sounds to me like our current patch is the best fit because it fits
our needs, will work with Chromium's out-of-process workers, plus it
allows us to remove FrameLoader::registerURLSchemeAsLocal
get an idea for a different approach that would
be accepted?
Thanks,
- a
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
On 09.04.2009, at 22:38, Aaron Boodman wrote:
The local scheme feature is actually more powerful than just XHR
If you only need extensions to do
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
On 09.04.2009, at 1:23, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Rafael Weinstein, who is working with me, consulted with Adam Barth
and submitted a patch based on his ideas
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24853 for this a few
Adding back webkit-dev...
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
Ok, so if I may sum up the conversation so far:
* A static call out to a client is ugly, but OK as a temporary measure
* You would like to see this mechanism replace the local scheme
thing
Hello all,
I'm working on adding extensions (aka Add-Ons) to Chromium. One
thing we want to enable these extensions to do is to make limited
cross-origin XMLHttpRequests.
Rafael Weinstein, who is working with me, consulted with Adam Barth
and submitted a patch based on his ideas
Hello all,
I'd like to run some C++ around the same point as the DOMContentLoaded
event is fired. Importantly, I need this to happen *before* the
window's onload event fires.
FrameLoaderClient::dispatchDidFinishDocumentLoad is usually fired at
the right point, but it can sometimes happen after
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Hello all,
I'd like to run some C++ around the same point as the DOMContentLoaded
event is fired
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In conclusion, I would say it is ok to change it. If we find some
third-party app that for some reason requires the old behavior, I think a
one-off compatibility hack for such an app would be an acceptable solution.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really like the overengineered version. I like the fairly
minimalist version best, but is there anything from the
overengineered version that should be added to it?
I like the fairly minimalist version best as
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Starts a timer that will call function callback after
delayInSeconds, which may be a fractional number of seconds.
It seems safe to assume that a large number of timers are going to be
on the order of 1-10ms. Because
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Timer startTimer(double delayInSeconds, bool repeating, Function
callback);
interface Timer {
void stop();
}
One other random idea. What about mixing up the param order for
parallelism with the existing timer
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Alex Iskander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. Repeating, it seems to me, should be an optional argument; the
callback and time, on the other hand, are completely necessary.
Good point.
The default value for repeating is probably up for debate. Would more web
32 matches
Mail list logo
