I removed some people from the cc. The WHATWG list seems to bite.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Ryan Sleevi sle...@google.com wrote:
I think as we look to
provide a compelling story for EME over wholly-proprietary (... rather than
partially-proprietary) solutions, or look to improve the
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Martin Thomson
martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that the easiest way to avoid this is to make an attempt to
read Response.body raise a SecurityError if the origin is different
(in Firefox terms, we would say if the response principal is not
subsumed by
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Matthew Wolenetz wolen...@google.com wrote:
Certainly. As I understand it, the reasons for reusing appendStream() rather
than adding appendResponse() to MSE are generally two-fold:
a) MSE already has appendStream(). In combination with the other changes to
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote:
I also imagine it won't be too hard to spec, as the point of an opaque stream
type is that most of its methods consist of magic happens here (roughly
speaking).
Well, we also need to ensure that nothing that takes a
From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Anne van
Kesteren
Well, except now you make yourself depend on some definition of an
opaque stream object which nobody has defined yet. Perhaps we should,
but that will take longer and won't be less work (though maybe less
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Matthew Wolenetz wolen...@google.com
wrote:
After further internal discussion, we believe we can and should reuse
appendStream() rather than adding appendResponse().
For those not
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Matthew Wolenetz wolen...@google.com wrote:
After further internal discussion, we believe we can and should reuse
appendStream() rather than adding appendResponse().
For those not privy, could you share the reasoning?
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Ryan,
Proposals like this might allow video-intensive sites to migrate to HTTPS
sooner than otherwise and are thus very welcome. This one was originally
suggested by Anne Van Kesteren, I believe. Or at least something very
similar. However, this particular proposal suffers (IIUC) from the
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Ryan Sleevi sle...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mark Watson wats...@netflix.com wrote:
Ryan,
Proposals like this might allow video-intensive sites to migrate to HTTPS
sooner than otherwise and are thus very welcome. This one was
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for writing this up. I know you already know this, but I wanted to
publically declare my support as one of the MSE editors. While I wish we
didn't need this, I can understand the concerns of content providers and I
think this is a reasonable compromise.
Aaron
On Thu Feb 19 2015
10 matches
Mail list logo
