On 7/24/10 1:50 AM, Brett Zamir wrote:
I would be particularly interested in data on this last, across
different browsers, operating systems, and locales... There seem to be
servers out there expecting their URIs in UTF-8 and others expecting
them in ISO-8859-1, and it's not clear to me how to
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:21:10 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think that depends largely on how many, and how big, sites are
affected by this. Do you have a list of known sites with this issue?
No,
On 7/24/10 2:49 AM, Brett Zamir wrote:
By the servers/scripting languages. While it is great that the browsers
are involved in the process, I think it would be reasonable to invite
the other stake-holders to join the discussions.
If they're willing to talk to us, great. My past experience
On 24.07.2010 02:33, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Wrong. Plain wrong. Kids who like to test stuff do things like this. I
do agree though that the urlbar isn't the right place, there should be
a different prompt for this kind of stuff. Probably disabled at compile
time by default and accessible
Op 24-7-2010 2:02, David Flanagan schreef:
Nick wrote:
Nice, less math.
I think the outside alignment approach will only work on paths that
have a 100% opacity fill.
You'r right.
The off-screen rectangle approach could work with opacity but it has
the same problem with transparent pixels
Six out of the six mentioned sites are never visited by me.
Though I know I am not representative in these numbers, I believe I recently
saw tests about defer currently having different implementation across
browser and different behavior depending on the script insertion point and
again
2010/7/23 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide_v2.html#Canonicalization
lists
some interesting cases we've come across on the anti-phishing team in
Google. To the extent you're concerned with / interested in
canonicalizaiton, it
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.comwrote:
Is that URLs as values of attributes in HTML or is that URLs as pasted into
the address bar? I believe their processing differs...
I strongly suggest ignoring browser address bars. As the author of most of
the
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Jul 23, 2010, at 08:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
- Keep implementation costs for standalone players low.
I think this should be a non-goal. It seems to me that trying to cater for
non-browser user agents or non-Web uses in
On 07/24/2010 08:46 AM, Ola P. Kleiven wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:21:10 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think that depends largely on how many, and how big, sites are
affected by this. Do you
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Paul Ellis p...@ellisfoundation.comwrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Jul 23, 2010, at 08:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
- Keep implementation costs for standalone players low.
I think this should be a non-goal. It
Defer doesn't achieve the desired behavior. The goal is load this
script after everything else in the page is done. Instead, defer'ed
scripts get loaded immediately, thus stealing one of the few network
connections from other (more important) resources.
Here's an example:
On Jul 24, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
2010/7/23 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide_v2.html#Canonicalization
lists
some interesting cases we've come across on the anti-phishing team in
Google. To the extent you're
On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:16 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Silvia made we aware of discrepancy in how browsers implement the resource
selection algorithm, see forwarded message. It's my assessment that Opera is
the only browser following the spec. I've filed this bug with Mozilla:
14 matches
Mail list logo
