for every iOS device specifically (when we add to homepage)? Do
chrome and Firefox support SVG icon images?
On 24 Jun 2015 2:40 pm, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
To close the loop on this, we will change
explicit color and we'll consider automatic color picking based on the SVG as a
fallback when the color is missing as a future extension.
Please let me know if anyone disagrees with this approach.
Regards,
Maciej
On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Out
On Jun 17, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Francis bfran...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 17 June 2015 at 20:23, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Using a mask attribute in place of href would solve the compat problem
about as well as using rel=“mask-icon”, but it seems kind of weird to me
Out of curiosity, I understand that flat design is fashionable right now
and you might want single colour icons to represent web sites in Safari,
but what is your fallback for the billion or so web sites which currently
only provide a multi-coloured icon? I assume you just display the icon
Consolidating replies to limit spam.
On Jun 16, 2015, at 4:37 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com writes:
[…]
Where do we go from here:
(1) We could add mask or something like it to the standard, and change
browsers
, at 12:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
We don’t have a strong principle on this, and it’s not too late to change
before shipping the release version of Safari 9. We welcome input on which of
these would be best, or whether something else entirely is better.
To be even more
make a new standalone rel value for mask icons, I would
suggest mask-icon or something like that instead of mask, since mask is too
generic a term.
- Maciej
Justin
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Elliott Sprehn
There’s no technological enforcement that the SVG only uses the color black. We
will interpret it as a mask in the same way as the SVG ‘mask’ element, which
effectively combines the luminance with the alpha channel. Effectively, this
means that other colors will end up partly transparent, so
On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
The new Safari is still only a preview, so I hope Apple will switch to a
better solution.
It would be great if we could get some feedback
On Jun 15, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Elliott Sprehn espr...@chromium.org wrote:
Adding a whole new attribute for this seems like overkill, why not use the
rel.
link rel=icon mask href=... sizes=...
That's what the rel list was designed for.
In general, rel values are supposed to be
On Feb 20, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/20/14 11:18 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
(If people used rAF for what it was *intended* for, we could probably
have stopped firing it *entirely* when the window isn't visible.
We do. At least Chrome and Firefox do.
On Dec 31, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Is there an editor's draft or some other relatively self-contained
write-up that I could review?
Tab has rewritten the picture spec to match the latest
On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Realistically speaking, I don't think this will help much at all. Few
websites like using the default styling for form controls anyway and
so people would be just as unhappy with the default switch rendering
as they are with
?
Regards,
Maciej
laurent
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I see. It seems like it would be simpler to just define content on a
real element to have the existing WK/Blink
On Nov 18, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
It seems like the blockers to this syntax working as-is are:
- For Safari and Chrome, url(attr()) doesn't work.
This will never work; for legacy
On Nov 18, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I'm not enough of a CSS expert to understand the implications of that
change. What would be the observable behavior changes that 'content
On Nov 15, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My apologies. I thought Christian Biesinger addressed all these
concerns with his proposal:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Christian Biesinger
On Nov 15, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Do you have an alternative proposal aside from src-N? Recall that
src-N has been rejected by WebKit and therefore is no longer viable.
Hey,
On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
My objections were mostly about semantics and not purely aesthetic. I also
wasn't the only one to raise concerns on webkit-dev. To represent the
On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 12.11.2013 17:48 schrieb Markus Lanthaler:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:04 PM, Markus Ernst wrote:
We could define some ways to list set of images
On Nov 10, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such
On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing.
The way you avoid complexity in such things is that you
On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:19 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:11 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) willc...@chromium.org wrote:
Unless I am misunderstanding, SPDY will not solve this problem. SPDY uses
On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:11 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) willc...@chromium.org wrote:
Unless I am misunderstanding, SPDY will not solve this problem. SPDY uses
prioritized multiplexing of streams.
It seems to me like SPDY could make this case work better:
script async
It might be good to use a custom MIME type instead of multipart/mixed.
multipart/mixed can represent arbitrary heterogenous sequences of types, which
is not the desired semantic here - you want a sequence of all text/javascript
types. It also has a syntactic affordance for conveying a MIME
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I don't think location.domain would be the same as location.tld, to the
extent I understand the intent of them.
For the URL http://www.apple.com
On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
My impression from TPAC is that implementors are on board with the idea of
adding main to HTML, and we're left with Hixie objecting to it.
For those of
(1) If this API fills in a form completely based on stored data, and not by
completing the user's typing, then it is autofill rather than autocomplete.
(2) If this API provides the ability to get user information without even
having a visible form, then it's not clear that it is even really
On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 11.10.2012 18:36 schrieb Ian Hickson:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Markus Ernst wrote:
IMHO as an author, the bandwidth use case is not solved in a future
proof manner
It's not solved at all. I didn't attempt to solve it.
On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Mark Callow wrote:
On 2012/10/06 7:09, Ian Hickson wrote:
I agree, when there's 3x displays, this could get to the point where we
need
Charles,
Your whole message here is bizarre and disruptive:
- Your claims about the data gathering capabilities of varying browser vendors
are arbitrary, incorrect (in the cases I know of), and off-topic for this list.
- Your reference to the Hixie-Atkins draft is unwarranted and strange.
-
Excellent work.
Did you use tests while making this and if so did you save them? It might be
worthwhile to check all the browsers against the spec.
Cheers,
Maciej
On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I took a crack at defining URLs:
On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Fred Andrews freda...@live.com wrote:
...
I have always been comfortable with the 'x' part of srcset, but the w
and h part felt somewhat wrong to me. What you'd really want to consider
when deciding which image to pick isn't the size of the viewport itself,
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that this feature sounds an awful lot
like rel=noreferrer, which has been in WebKit for several years:
http://www.webkit.org/blog/907/webkit-nightlies-support-html5-noreferrer-link-relation/
It is also mentioned in the official link relation registry:
I overlooked that it's also in the spec itself, not just the registry:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#link-type-noreferrer
Regards,
Maciej
On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned
,
Maciej
On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that this feature sounds an awful lot
like rel=noreferrer, which has been in WebKit for several years:
http://www.webkit.org/blog/907/webkit-nightlies-support-html5-noreferrer
To expand a little on rationale for what Jeffrey said:
We're working on an experimental preference setting for WebKit to block data
storage in a third-party context, similar to the third-party cookie blocking
feature in many browsers, but covering all forms of client-side storage. The
intent
I also agree with Henri and James. I would be opposed to implementing the
feature in WebKit the way it is currently proposed. The aesthetic benefit is
not great enough to be worth the breakage. Consider in particular that the
following proposed markup:
intent
action=edit
On Aug 7, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Anyway, do you have a concrete suggestion for an alternate name? I'm not
wedded to generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt and I doubt Hixie is
either. It's just a proposal that came up after 15 minutes of brainstorming
on
On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one
name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long
img src=... generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=
This has several key
On Jul 25, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
I would also like to point out that this feature seems to overlap with
not only type= (as has been pointed out), but inputmode= as well,
and for that matter pattern=. I think it would be quite unfortunate
if authors found
On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Kornel LesiÅ~Dski wrote:
But even if single-mixed-login-field autocomplete was desired, then
perhaps a mixed type would work too:
input type=username email
How about merging autocompletetype with
On Jul 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
For some of these fields, autocomplete= as a hint to autocompletion seems
sufficient. However, I think some may logically be a distinct input type
On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.com wrote:
As things currently stand in the spec, implementations basically need to
keep N+1 bitmaps per canvas, where N is the number of hit regions. I
On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I recently experimented with keyboard accessibility of media elements.
I found that browsers don't provide a default tabfocus on media
elements nor do they provide keyboard interactivity. I had to put
On May 26, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Hi whatwg,
I've added a proposal to the wiki
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/AllowSeamless about letting a document
indicate that it is willing to be displayed seamlessly with a
cross-origin parent. This proposal is a
On May 25, 2012, at 4:27 AM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:02:00 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I agree. Even though there are still legacy features like cookies and
document.domain that use domain-based security, most of the Web platform
uses
On May 25, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
The list is at
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting-1.html#support-the-scripting-language
or http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-script-element.html#scriptingLanguages
depending on which you
I agree. Even though there are still legacy features like cookies and
document.domain that use domain-based security, most of the Web platform uses
origin-based security, and that has proved to be a sounder model. While I
acknowledge the use cases for exposing location.domain, it's also likely
On May 22, 2012, at 11:57 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
It seems like making FileList mutable would serve the same use case and
would also be more flexible (as you could upload a set of files collected
from
On May 21, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
There’s no prior precedent this sort of thing—there’s no reason we can’t
find a way to preserve an image’s intrinsic width using `picture`. I wonder
if simply adding `width` and `height` attributes on the element
It seems like making FileList mutable would serve the same use case and would
also be more flexible (as you could upload a set of files collected from
possibly multiple sources). And it seems like adding is a more likely desired
behavior than replacing when dragging files onto a multi-file
On May 18, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 15.05.2012 09:28 schrieb Ian Hickson:
img src=face-600-...@1.jpeg alt=
srcset=face-600-...@1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
face-600-...@2.jpeg 600w 200h 2x,
face-icon.png 200w 200h
On May 16, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I agree that there's no obligation. And I agree that if people here
didn't know about the existence of the CG then of course it's not
surprising that we didn't engage with the work that was happening
there.
However I
On May 17, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012 19:15, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
A few humble thoughts
-Have the CG recruit an experienced implementor
On May 17, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:32:51 +0100, Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com wrote:
Kornel wrote:
Note that the scale multiplier can be omitted already when only the size is
specified
I'm confused by what you mean by scale
On May 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
(The difference that the w3c
On May 16, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Chalk me up as another making that mistake. Properties on elements
usually describe a property of the element. Not a property of
On May 15, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
3.125x isn't particularly difficult to specify.
I actually didn't even realize that 300dpi is 3.125 times
On May 14, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com wrote:
It’s worth noting that a practical polyfill may not be possible when using
`img set`, for reasons detailed at length elsewhere:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/
On May 12, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com wrote:
I worry that, when faced with this markup, developers will simply opt to
serve the largest possible image in a src. In fairness, that approach works
with far less headache.
For the resolution-adaptation use case, that
On May 12, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com wrote:
While that information may be available at the time the img tag is parsed, I
don’t believe it will be available at the time of prefetching — I’m happy to
research this further and report back with citations. I’m sure I
On May 12, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 12, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com wrote:
While that information may be available at the time the img tag is parsed
On May 10, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
That all said, I don't like the 2x notation. It's declaring this
image's resolution is twice that of a normal image. This has two
problems. For one, we already have a unit that means that - the dppx
unit. Using
On May 10, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:24:28 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
For two, I'm not sure that it's particularly obvious that when you say
2x, you should make sure your image was saved as 196dpi. You have
to
On May 10, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/10/12 10:19 AM, Mathew Marquis wrote:
Hey guys. Don’t know if it’s too early to chime in with this, but we were
told by some members of the Chrome team that any browser that supports DNS
prefetching — including assets
On May 10, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Sami Eljabali seljab...@gmail.com wrote:
Good luck pushing Apple Microsoft in implementing this. If we create this
as a tag then we'd push every OS vendor to support it.
Mac OS X supports Arabic, Arabic - PC and Arabic - QWERTY input methods.
If none of these
Does this work in any non-WebKit browsers? (Asking mainly out of curiosity; I
would tend to agree in any case that adding nontrivial editing APIs that are
specific to only plaintext editable controls is not a good idea. But it might
be nice to specify explicitly whether execCommand works on
On Apr 29, 2012, at 1:41 PM, David Young dyo...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:38:26AM +0300, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
That sounds like a tangential issue. We can easily extend execCommand to
support arbitrary
On Apr 26, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
bhawkesle...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 2012 9:20 PM, Andrés Sanhueza peroyomasli...@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason a
footer as in textual metadata of a
On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
All JavaScript that runs on the main thread has the potential to freeze the
UI for all pages sharing that thread.
APIs on the main thread are designed to allow
On Apr 20, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
You could also address this by adding a way to be notified when the contents
of an ImageData are available without blocking. That would work with both
vanilla
On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
^^^ This got me thinking...
In Chrome at least, getImageData() doesn't actually block to fetch pixels.
The thread is only blocked when the first dereference of the pixel buffer
occurs. I believe this is done so that a getImageData()
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
dialog will give a better user experience than even a non-modal version
of window.confirm
On Apr 16, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
I don't understand why adding a runloop cycle to any read seems like
something that would introduce a much more noticable delay than a memcopy.
The use case is deferred
On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:10 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 7:54 PM
On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Jochen Eisinger wrote:
I'd like to put forward a proposal for extending the modal prompts
(alert/confirm/prompt) with an optional callback parameter. If the
On Mar 21, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
dialog will give a better user experience than even a non-modal version of
window.confirm() or window.alert(). Dialogs that are fully in-page
Oops, got cut off here. What I meant to say is something like dialogs that are
fully in-page
On Mar 20, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 3/20/12 6:50 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
I'm not suredialog addresses the same use cases as alert() and
confirm() becausedialog is significantly more complicated.
But also allows for much better UX...
dialog id=orderConfirm
Are you sure
On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.com wrote:
Charles Pritchard wrote:
But now run through this logic when the canvas is making a high res
backing store automatically: by doing the clever thing, you're now
On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:00 PM, James Robinson wrote:
If we are adding new APIs for manipulating the backing directly, can we
make them asynchronous? This would allow for many optimization
opportunities that are currently difficult or impossible.
Neat idea to offer async backing store access.
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 3/21/2012 8:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On Mar 20, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Edward O'Connoreocon...@apple.com wrote:
Charles Pritchard wrote:
But now run through this logic
Hi Folks,
What is the plan (if any) for turning Meta Referrer into a standard?
Currently there's a wiki spec, which is somewhat incomplete and which modifies
the middle of the HTML Fetch algorithm (probably not a future-proof approach,
since it refers to a numbered step):
On May 13, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 20:29 -0400, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
In
particular, Flash has allowed this for years, with 95%+ penetration
rates, so we should already have a good idea of how this feature can
be exploited in practice.
I don't know of
On Apr 6, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
On 2011-04-07 00:28, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Lachlan Huntlachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
What's wrong with using disabled?
WebKit already has insertAdjacentHTML support.
On Feb 26, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Rafael Holt r...@ratherodd.com wrote:
Yes, I had just never heard of insertAdjacentHTML(), since it doesn't enjoy
Webkit or Gecko
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
Hi all,
On the Chromium team we’ve identified a couple of use cases that we’d like to
address with a simple API, and we’d love your feedback.
In particular, there is currently no good way for a web page to detect that
it is a
On Sep 7, 2010, at 3:52 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:51:55 +0200, And Clover and...@doxdesk.com wrote:
On 09/07/2010 03:56 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
P.S. Sniffing is harder that you seem to think. It really is...
Quite. It surprises and saddens me that anyone
On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On 31.08.2010, at 23:39, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
At least as currently drafted, srcdoc is not a security feature. It's a
convenience feature. It is also designed to work well in tandem with a
particular security feature (sandbox). But by
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
While talking with the implementor of @srcdoc in Webkit, it came up
that, though @srcdoc is *designed* for use with @sandbox, the author
still has to explicitly add @sandbox to the iframe or else they
don't get the sandbox security model.
On Aug 30, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Justin Schuh wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I think it's better to let these remain orthogonal features. In general I
think it is a net negative to usability when Feature A implicitly turns on
Feature B
On Aug 30, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
While talking with the implementor of @srcdoc in Webkit, it came up
that, though @srcdoc is *designed* for use
On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Should @seamless imply @sandbox too, then?
I think there lots of use cases for seamless
On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
There are recommendations for what to do with video in the browser. I can
encourage the group to also make recommendations for what it means for images
in the browser.
However, the use of Media Fragment URIs in applications in general
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
That's difficult to say given that it's supported in most browsers.
We'd need to look for folks complaining to Mozilla. There's a tree of
duplicate bug reports that
On Aug 15, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mihai Parparita wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
actually a useful and needed feature, we should hear it. Or if someone from
Webkit or Opera wants to explain why they added it, that would be useful
too.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:23:55 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
We do consider this, but since the status quo is every browser but Firefox
implements it, it's not clear that flipping WebKit-based browsers from one
column
On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
Sorry for the lagged response,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
We at Mozilla are hoping to ship HTML resource packages in Firefox 4,
and we wanted to get the WhatWG's feedback on the feature.
For the impatient, the spec is here:
http://people.mozilla.org/~jlebar/respkg/
and the bug (complete with
On Aug 1, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Summary: The new 'sandbox' feature on iframe should be considered
for removal. It needs a security review, it will be a lot of work to
implement properly, and may not actually solve the problem it is
intending to solve.
More details here:
1 - 100 of 478 matches
Mail list logo
