On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Michael Nordmanmicha...@google.com wrote:
Tim Berners-Lee seems to think this could be a valid use of URI references.
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html
The significance of the fragment identifier is a function of the MIME type
of the object
Are
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 accurate resolution even for wav files.
I'll chime in
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. From a practical perspective
it would be nice to have an ambiguous way to mark up numerical
Max Romantschuk wrote:
it would be nice to have an ambiguous way to mark up numerical constants
Make that an unambiguous way... I seem to have lost my negations today.
--
Max Romantschuk
m...@romantschuk.fi
http://max.romantschuk.fi/
Hi,
I see no reason why they should not be applicable to data URIs when it
is obvious that the data URI is a media file. This has not yet been
discussed, but would be an obvious use case.
OK. That would be welcome - although there could be syntactic problems
as where to place fragment
Max Romantschuk wrote:
I'll chime in here, having done extensive work with audio and video
codecs. With current codec implementations getting sample- or
frame-accurate resolution is largely a pipe dream. (Outside of the realm
of platforms dedicated to content production and playback.)
Dr. Markus Walther wrote:
The much weaker goal I would propose is to support at least one simple
lossless audio format in this regard (I am not qualified to comment on
the video case). Simple means 'simple to generate, simple to decode',
and PCM WAVE meets these requirements, so would be an
Oops. This has been sitting in my outbox for a while, so it's a
response to somewhat old messages, but I think it still has some
value, especially the examples taken from Philip Taylor's data and
elsewhere on the web.
On Jul 19, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Certainly there are
On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
It is often the most semantically appropriate element for marking
up
a name
There is no need to
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Max Romantschukm...@romantschuk.fi wrote:
It might well be that there is no problem. From a practical perspective it
would be nice to have an ambiguous way to mark up numerical constants in a
document and thus allow a straightforward way of doing conversions.
Dear whatwg,
The previous discussion about shared page and persistence has sent us back
'to the drawing board', to think again what is the essence of the feature
and what's not important. Talking with web apps developers indicates the
most of benefits can be achieved without dangerous background
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Jim Jewettjimjjew...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, SharedWorkers accept both a url parameter and a name
parameter - the purpose is to let pages run multiple SharedWorkers using the
same script resource without having to load separate resources from the
server.
After some internal discussions, I've sent a quite updated proposal which
includes use cases we've looked at (Global Script). We've got some
experience of talking with app developers and it seems having a concept of
'application context' or 'global script' is a recurring theme.. The unwanted
What purpose the the 'name' serve? Just seems uncessary to have the notion
of 'named' workers. They need to be identified. The url, including the
fragment part, could serve that purpse just fine without a seperate 'name'.
The 'name' is not enough to identify the worker, url,name is the
identifier.
In 4.8.2.1.9:
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, which are
presumably projected onto
SUMMARY
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 download the data file from the
Following up on this issue:
Currently, the checks specified for MessagePort.postMessage() are different
from the checks done in window.postMessage() (as described in section 7.2.4
Posting messages with message ports).
In particular, step 4 of section 7.2.4 says:
If any of the entries in ports are
17 matches
Mail list logo
