Am Montag, den 24.08.2009, 16:33 -0400 schrieb Brian Campbell:
Given that there are so many technically invalid addresses that
actually do work to deliver mail, and that I'm sure some people have
odd addresses due to poor form validation […]
Well, maybe the RFC should be updated as well ?
On Aug 26, 2009, at 22:54, Darin Fisher wrote:
Firefox and IE implement window modal, which is clearly buggy, but
of course the world hasn't imploded.
FWIW, Firefox differs here on Windows and Mac. On Windows, you can
close tabs in the window even when window.alert() is up, which may
Speaking up as an application developer ;-) here, I think the evict data at
browser's choice route is fatal for new inventions in app development. I've
been hoping that WebStorage and Offline together with other new APIs could
provide a platform that allows us to build applications free from
On Aug 26, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Jens Alfke wrote:
To repeat what I said up above: Maybe the local storage API needs a
way to distinguish between cached data that can be silently thrown
away, and important data that can't.
That makes sense to me. There might even be more than two
On 27/08/2009 15:47, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
- Cached for convenience - discarding this will affect performance but not
functionality.
- Useful for offline use - discarding this will prevent some data from being
accessed when offline.
- Critical for offline use - discarding
Adrian Sutton said:
On 27/08/2009 15:47, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
- Cached for convenience - discarding this will affect performance but not
functionality.
- Useful for offline use - discarding this will prevent some data from being
accessed when offline.
- Critical for
I'm one of the lurking web application developers. This discussion has
gone mostly how I was hoping, but since 'offline apps' has come up
again, I might bootstrap that a bit. Below are some use cases, but I'll
summarize my perspective briefly.
1. To run Doom requiring 500M of localStorage
Adrian Sutton wrote:
On 27/08/2009 15:47, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
- Cached for convenience - discarding this will affect performance but not
functionality.
- Useful for offline use - discarding this will prevent some data from being
accessed when offline.
- Critical for offline
And to confound the problem further, UAs dont have meta-data on hand with
which to relate various pieces of local data together and attribute them to
a specific user-identifiable 'application'. Everything is bound to a
security-origin, but that doesn't clearly identify or label an
'application'.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
That makes sense to me. There might even be more than two categories:
- Cached for convenience - discarding this will affect performance but not
functionality.
- Useful for offline use - discarding this will prevent some
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Schuyler Duveenwha...@graffitiweb.org wrote:
1. To run Doom requiring 500M of localStorage sounds like an
'application'--both users and developers currently have the expectation
that users have to approve something like that before being installed to
their
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Schuyler Duveenwha...@graffitiweb.org
wrote:
1. To run Doom requiring 500M of localStorage sounds like an
'application'--both users and developers currently have the expectation
that users have to approve something like that before being
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Schuyler Duveenwha...@graffitiweb.org wrote:
If it's user-specific, then why not just use sessionStorage?
Hmm. You're right, there's a lot of overlap there. sessionStorage
might be sufficient for caching, for most applications. If not,
localStorage could be
On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Jens Alfke wrote:
To repeat what I said up above: Maybe the local storage API needs a
way to distinguish between cached data that can be silently thrown
away, and important data that can't.
That makes sense
[This is a spin-off of Web Storage: apparent contradiction in spec.
I'm starting a new thread to make a specific proposal.]
I agree that where possible we should find a way to do things without
adding Mother-may-I dialog boxes. But I also believe we need some user
interaction to enable a
I don't think there is consensus at Google yet.
I'm not saying that UAs shouldn't provide file-like lifetime semantics for
storage. I'm just saying the user should decide, not the web page.
Here's one way such a thing could be achieved:
input type=storage src=button.png quota=20GB /
When the
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Linus Upsonli...@google.com wrote:
I simply want clicking on links to be safe. In a previous thread I wrote
safe and stateless but I'm coming to the opinion that stateless is
a corollary of safe. Clicking on links shouldn't, either by filling my disk
or hitting
I would much rather have a well thought-out local filesystem proposal, than
continued creep of the existing File and Local Storage proposal. These
proposals are both designed from the perspective of I want to take some
existing data and either put it into the cloud or make it available
offline.
There should also be a way to ask for more quota (from the user) without
losing user data.
The API via a form element is a little odd--generally forms are for
submitting information to the site. Historically, all of these kinds of
things are done via javascript:
* cookies
* opensearch additions
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Linus Upsonli...@google.com wrote:
The
candidate delete list will be thousands long and hidden in that haystack
will be a few precious needles.
While that is certainly one of the outcomes, and I agree a bad one, I
am not sure that the user experience needs to
I like this proposal. It was what I had in mind with input type=open and
input type=save. The only small change I'd make is that the page can
only maintain a reference to the file for the life of that page. After that,
the user needs to click open again. The open and save dialogs may remember
2009/8/27 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
I would much rather have a well thought-out local filesystem proposal, than
continued creep of the existing File and Local Storage proposal. These
proposals are both designed from the perspective of I want to take some
existing data and either
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
They can follow the links (not following the links is a should not,
not a must not). Once they follow the links, they must ignore the
type= attribute and only take into account the
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
Sure. For example, the UA might want to display the list of resources to
the user. In such a UI, if the UI includes types, it would have to use the
type= attribute's value as the type.
That seems very speculative. Does any UA
Not sure I agree with limiting it to the duration of the page. For instance,
if I'm Flickr, I want to be able to get access to the My Photos directory
and monitor it for new photos being added. Additionally, if I've given you
access to the directory once, you can do most of the damage you want
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On 16/08/2009 12:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
Italics is the right format for almost all titles of works.
How are you measuring that?
For example, chapters in collections and articles are works and have
titles, and those titles aren't
Things missing from Arun's File proposal as is, off the top of my head:
a) a directory structure (someone would have to build one on top of it...
not critical, but not ideal)
b) Ability to store it not in localStorage in some hidden directory, but on
the part of the filesystem the user is familiar
2009/8/27 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
2009/8/27 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
I would much rather have a well thought-out local filesystem proposal,
than
continued creep of the existing File and Local Storage proposal. These
proposals are both designed from the perspective of
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
1. What counts for script source if the inline XML contained within
the SCRIPT tag is invalid, assuming that the document is HTML or the
document is XHTML and the embedded invalid XML code is within a CDATA
section so that the containing
2009/8/27 Michael Nordman micha...@google.com
2009/8/27 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
2009/8/27 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
I would much rather have a well thought-out local filesystem proposal,
than
continued creep of the existing File and Local Storage proposal. These
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Max Romantschuk wrote:
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Precision is influenced more strongly by the temporal resolution of
the decoding pipeline rather than the polling resolution for
currentTime. I doubt the previous implementations of start and end
gave you a 3 sample
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Max Romantschuk wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't really understand the use case here. What problem would this be
solving? What do we have to demonstrate that this problem matters?
It might well be that there is no problem.
Ok. Then I recommend we punt this to the
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Linus Upsonli...@google.com wrote:
I don't think there is consensus at Google yet.
I'm not saying that UAs shouldn't provide file-like lifetime semantics for
storage. I'm just saying the user should decide, not the web page.
Linus, are you only considering
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
Sure. For example, the UA might want to display the list of resources to
the user. In such a UI, if the UI includes types, it would have to use the
type= attribute's value as the type.
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
It's kind of a nitpick, but I don't think this sentence is accurate:
Another example of an image that defies full description is a fractal,
which, by definition, is infinite in complexity.
First of all, we're talking about describing images here,
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Jian Li wrote:
The HTML 5 spec defines the event-based drag-and-drop mechanism that
could cross the browser boundary. If a draggable element contains a URL,
dragging it out of the browser will only copy the URL value. However, in
some scenarios, we really want to
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:31:30 -0400, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:05:26 -0400, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
- Should objects exist all the time whether they are attached to
the
document or not?
Assuming you
My concerns are around browser UAs. AIR, Dashboard, XULRunner, Extensions,
etc. can have different policies. I simply want clicking on links in my
browser to be safe.
Linus
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Linus
38 matches
Mail list logo
