Re: [webkit-dev] no URL validation checking in KURLGoogle?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Huang, Deqing wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that KURLGoogle is not validating url, it simply marks url as > valid. > > I tested an invalid url "http://a a/" in Chrome, it tried to open it and > failed. > In FireFox for this kind of url it will pop out a dialog saying "The URL is > not valid and cannot be loaded". > > Should url be validated in KURLGoogle too? Or any concerns not adding it? This mailing list is not the correct place for this. If you think you have a bug, you should file one. I question why you think the problem is KURLGoogle and why you think it is not validating the URL. If you step through the code for this URL, you will find that this is not the case. Brett ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Source/ThirdParty/ChangeLog? Really???
Hi All, I didn't break the tradition, 7 was the culprit revision: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/10 - trunk/Source/ThirdParty/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/9 - absolutely "wrong" patch http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/8 - absolutely "wrong" patch http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/7 - trunk/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/6 - trunk/WebCore/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/5 - trunk/WebCore/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/4 - trunk/WebCore/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/3 - trunk/WebCore/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/2 - trunk/WebCore/ChangeLog http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/1 - absolutely "wrong" patch Now we shouldn't be sad, but let's celebrate this great number! ;) Brady Eidson írta: Bad form! X0,000 announcements have historically always been in WebCore/ChangeLog. A sad and unfortunate break in tradition just to avoid resolving the conflict to land. :( But seriously WebKit, congrats! ~Brady ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] Source/ThirdParty/ChangeLog? Really???
Bad form! X0,000 announcements have historically always been in WebCore/ChangeLog. A sad and unfortunate break in tradition just to avoid resolving the conflict to land. :( But seriously WebKit, congrats! ~Brady ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] vertical text
Thanks for the answer, Dave. That makes perfect sense. Why is it that the graphics context is rotated but the advances supplied to Font::DrawGlyphs in the GlyphBuffer aren't? Cary On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM, David Hyatt wrote: > On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Cary Clark wrote: > > > TL;DR: Why is the graphics context rotated when drawing vertical text? > > I assume you're referring to the rotation done by InlineTextBox. The basic > reason for the rotation was that it was a minimal change to the code and > allowed a bunch of other drawing functions to remain unchanged. You could > certainly eliminate the rotation, but you'd then have to patch all of the > InlineTextBox drawing functions (underlines, selection, spell check > markers, etc.) to be able to operate horizontally or vertically. > > dave > (hy...@apple.com) > > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Supporting w3c ref tests and changing our convention
On 07.11.11 15:44, Alan Stearns wrote: What if we defer some of the W3C metadata work until tests were actually submitted to the W3C? 1. Tests we pull from W3C can run from manifests, since they are provided. 2. Tests we develop ourselves just use a naming convention (refs are named *-ref.html, and there's one ref per test even if that's duplicative) 3. When we choose to share a set of tests with the W3C, we do the extra work of adding metadata to the tests and possibly refactoring to reduce the number of -ref files. Once the W3C approves the tests we pull their copies and delete ours. I think this is the "best of both worlds" approach, in that it's easy to import W3C tests (manifest is already there), easy to add new tests in WebKit (no need to regenerate the manifest when landing, or on every build), and gives a clear way of what needs to be done when upstreaming tests to W3C. The link-approach seems the least ideal, as it puts more strain on each port to fix their DRT, versus adding features to the shared test scripts, and going manifest-only adds more process for adding new tests -- a process that I think we can defer and batch up to when we want to upstream tests. Tor Arne ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] no URL validation checking in KURLGoogle?
Hi, It seems that KURLGoogle is not validating url, it simply marks url as valid. I tested an invalid url "http://a a/" in Chrome, it tried to open it and failed. In FireFox for this kind of url it will pop out a dialog saying "The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded". Should url be validated in KURLGoogle too? Or any concerns not adding it? Thanks, Deqing ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
