Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM, javascr...@riseup.net wrote: On 9/12/14, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote: What I'd you're a long way away from any medical help? What? s/I'd/if/ (sorry - mobile keyboard) In my mind this is part of the larger drive of the web of things (IoT applied to the web) and needs device APIs. This might not be the right group to discuss it in though. Where is the best place to define the APIs for devices to track, monitor, and surveil us? Perhaps the W3C is the best place. It is funded by the very corporations that are making such monitoring devices and with developer relations experts to tell you how. These corporations are backed by philanthropists, such as William Gates III, whose opposes climate change, whistleblowers, and overpopulation. Sure, Microsoft might've backdoored stuff for the NSA for the past 10 years, and Apple might share your info to the NSA (they'll get it anyway). And Google and the CIA might want info for MindMeld (TM) or Recorded Future, which they openly fund (links below). He who pays the piper calls the tune. You don't have anything to hide, right? Or maybe the question of how or where to best to engineer this or that new gadget is best answered by first asking how to prevent such engineering from being used by a top-down, efficient system. The system is working. That is the problem. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/10/cant-wait-for-the-apple-watch-beware-your-fitness-data-may-be-sold-or-used-against-you/ http://rt.com/usa/microsoft-nsa-snowden-leak-971/ Google CIA funded MindMeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_Future CIA funded MindMeld http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/expect-labs-lands-in-q-tel-investment-will-help-u-s-intelligence-integrate-its-mindmeld-technology/ If you don't want to give your data to anyone, don't. Nobody is forcing you to share your medical data over the Internet. Nobody is forcing you to share your location data over the Internet as well – but somehow, flashlight apps for Android seem to do it at times: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-does-an-android-flashlight-app-need-gps-permission/ If something is possible, users can be tricked into allowing it – or even pressured. Just look at “enable JavaScript and cookies or a web site that *could* work without both of these will refuse to do that.” I don't see that stopping the world moving forward though. Given that it is happening anyway, I'd rather go with an open API than proprietary ones where we don't know what is happening. I question the assumption that an open standard for something ethically questionable is always desirable. An open standard for voting computers could, for example, lead to more use of voting computers and thus help those who wish commit large scale electoral fraud. I must admit that I am not nearly knowledgeable enough regarding ethical and legal issues surrounding disclosure of medical data. I just think that “shoot first, ask questions later” does not fit in there well. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
[whatwg] (no subject)
On 9/12/14, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote: What I'd you're a long way away from any medical help? What? In my mind this is part of the larger drive of the web of things (IoT applied to the web) and needs device APIs. This might not be the right group to discuss it in though. Where is the best place to define the APIs for devices to track, monitor, and surveil us? Perhaps the W3C is the best place. It is funded by the very corporations that are making such monitoring devices and with developer relations experts to tell you how. These corporations are backed by philanthropists, such as William Gates III, whose opposes climate change, whistleblowers, and overpopulation. Sure, Microsoft might've backdoored stuff for the NSA for the past 10 years, and Apple might share your info to the NSA (they'll get it anyway). And Google and the CIA might want info for MindMeld (TM) or Recorded Future, which they openly fund (links below). He who pays the piper calls the tune. You don't have anything to hide, right? Or maybe the question of how or where to best to engineer this or that new gadget is best answered by first asking how to prevent such engineering from being used by a top-down, efficient system. The system is working. That is the problem. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/10/cant-wait-for-the-apple-watch-beware-your-fitness-data-may-be-sold-or-used-against-you/ http://rt.com/usa/microsoft-nsa-snowden-leak-971/ Google CIA funded MindMeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_Future CIA funded MindMeld http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/expect-labs-lands-in-q-tel-investment-will-help-u-s-intelligence-integrate-its-mindmeld-technology/ --
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM, javascr...@riseup.net wrote: On 9/12/14, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote: What I'd you're a long way away from any medical help? What? s/I'd/if/ (sorry - mobile keyboard) In my mind this is part of the larger drive of the web of things (IoT applied to the web) and needs device APIs. This might not be the right group to discuss it in though. Where is the best place to define the APIs for devices to track, monitor, and surveil us? Perhaps the W3C is the best place. It is funded by the very corporations that are making such monitoring devices and with developer relations experts to tell you how. These corporations are backed by philanthropists, such as William Gates III, whose opposes climate change, whistleblowers, and overpopulation. Sure, Microsoft might've backdoored stuff for the NSA for the past 10 years, and Apple might share your info to the NSA (they'll get it anyway). And Google and the CIA might want info for MindMeld (TM) or Recorded Future, which they openly fund (links below). He who pays the piper calls the tune. You don't have anything to hide, right? Or maybe the question of how or where to best to engineer this or that new gadget is best answered by first asking how to prevent such engineering from being used by a top-down, efficient system. The system is working. That is the problem. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/10/cant-wait-for-the-apple-watch-beware-your-fitness-data-may-be-sold-or-used-against-you/ http://rt.com/usa/microsoft-nsa-snowden-leak-971/ Google CIA funded MindMeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_Future CIA funded MindMeld http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/expect-labs-lands-in-q-tel-investment-will-help-u-s-intelligence-integrate-its-mindmeld-technology/ If you don't want to give your data to anyone, don't. Nobody is forcing you to share your medical data over the Internet. I don't see that stopping the world moving forward though. Given that it is happening anyway, I'd rather go with an open API than proprietary ones where we don't know what is happening. Silvia.
[whatwg] (no subject)
[whatwg] related subject -- access to local files RE: Forms: input type=file and directory tree picking
A few years ago, probably on www-html5, I remember posing a question about enabling the once-unbroken ability to allow JavaScript with user-consent, to insert an image file (as the src of an img into a web page, viewed in the browser). It all used to be easy and worked in the two relevant browsers at the time: Netscape and IE. Then someone decided it was a security risk and that it preserved the privacy of the end user more to force him or her to upload the image to the server, create a round-trip from server to client and thence to be able to view a local image in a local web page. The old functionality continued to work in Netscape until its demise, and in IE until maybe version 6. The other browsers viewed the security risk as too high and ultimately IE seems to have agreed, hence breaking previous functionality. Of course, this seems just like what evil empires might define as security: forcing someone to upload all their stuff to a 'cloud' where always virtuous entities can protect us! I was most encouraged to hear that in some years forward from that time, we might actually regain the functionality we enjoyed in the early part of the previous decade! Anyhow, as I recall, at the time, Hixie commented and someone else chimed in with details (that seemed rather convoluted at the time) saying that it was something people were working on. Has this effort led to fruition? It has always seemed part and parcel to my concept of web applications and until the Design Principles including Don't Break the Web came along, it seemed to work quite well. Apologies if this is not the right place to ask questions about web functionality. The HTML/CSS/forms/whatwg/W3C nomenclature and jurisdictional issues are something that I haven't been quite able to follow with the attention that it would seem to require. Cheers David -Original Message- From: whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 4:36 PM To: Glenn Maynard Cc: WHAT Working Group; Jonathan Watt; Ian Hickson Subject: Re: [whatwg] Forms: input type=file and directory tree picking On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: That's not the only alternative. For example, a third alternative is that the user's selection (e.g. a directory) is returned quickly, not pre-expanded, and then any uploading happens in the background with the author script doing the walk and uploading the files. It's unclear to me what you are proposing here. Can you elaborate? The same thing I did, I think: an API to navigate the directory tree as needed, and to never greedily recursing the directory tree. Unfortunately that's forbidden by current specs. Or rather, the only implementation strategy that I can see for doing that while implementing the current spec would require synchronously traversing the full directory tree whenever element.files is accessed. At least to me that would have performance issues that are unacceptable to Firefox. Though of course you or anyone else is free to propose changes to the spec to improve that situation. / Jonas
Re: [whatwg] related subject -- access to local files RE: Forms: input type=file and directory tree picking
(Dropped CC's, since this isn't really related to the thread you're replying to.) On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:38 PM, David Dailey ddai...@zoominternet.netwrote: A few years ago, probably on www-html5, I remember posing a question about enabling the once-unbroken ability to allow JavaScript with user-consent, to insert an image file (as the src of an img into a web page, viewed in the browser). You can access the File object of files selected with input type=file (and similarly with drag-and-drop), create a URL representing it with URL.createObjectURL, and use that with img src. -- Glenn Maynard
[whatwg] (no subject)
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
How are you doing? http://transcom68.com/index747m--.php?ariqtheme=47 Thu, 8 Dec 2011 19:20:11 _ Its biggest sworn circulation was 700 copies, of which about 500 were _bona fide_ subscriptions, and the rest news-stand sales.The great English engineer, Robert Stephenson, grandson of the inventor and improver of the locomotive, is said to have ordered a thousand copies to be distributed on railways all over the world to show what an American newsboy could do.Even the _London Times_, known for generations as _The Thunderer_, and long considered the greatest newspaper in both hemispheres, quoted from _The Weekly Herald_, as the only paper of its kind in the world. (c) Brittiany weatherglass
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 17:59 +, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Hamza dridi wrote: Hi , i have something in my mind and i thaught it would be better i tell you so excuse me if this is not the right place and excuse for my bad english so i've seen facebook using a plugin in order do chat , so my suggestion is what if Html5 would support such functionality , and we will no longer need a plugin for that , sorry again if it's the wrong place and tell me if this is a stupid idea . Do you mean text chat (IM) or audio/video chat (video conferencing)? I would assume the part that the Skype plugin is being used for, as the only other part of the chat that isn't HTML/Javascript code is the Jabber connectivity, which isn't strictly a plugin per-say, more an additional interface to the raw data that is enabled through server modules. -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
On 05/10/11 11:37 AM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: I would assume the part that the Skype plugin is being used for, as the only other part of the chat that isn't HTML/Javascript code is the Jabber connectivity, which isn't strictly a plugin per-say, more an additional interface to the raw data that is enabled through server modules. The Audio/Video chat part, which supports similar uses to the Skype plugin, is part of the WebRTC effort. Jabber connectivity is something you can currently do by tunnelling the stanzas (messages) over XHR or WebSockets. Hope that helps orient you, -r
[whatwg] (no subject)
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Ric Hardacre wrote: Essentially the proposal is for a static DOM object which has read only settings exposed to javascript (ultimately one day sendable via HTTP to the web server to superceed UserAgent sniffing), the browser would be left with the task of presenting the various options to the user (global, per domain, etc.). Javascript has allowed web sites and applications increased levels of functionality but at the same time allowed for more possibilities of special effects and multimedia, these are two seperate sides of the javascript coin and it would be useful to have the former without being required to witness the latter. I encourage you to approach some browser vendors and see if they are interested in implementing this idea. That is one of the steps towards standardisation: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_the_spec.3F In general I would expect this idea to be specified independently; it doesn't need to be part of HTML5. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[whatwg] (no subject)
This is a proposal that I posted to w3.org a year ago, and it didn't really get
any debate there so I'm hoping to provoke some here, i wont go into too much
detail instead linking to the original posts but i'll give a bit of an overview
here...
Essentially the proposal is for a static DOM object which has read only settings
exposed to javascript (ultimately one day sendable via HTTP to the web server to
superceed UserAgent sniffing), the browser would be left with the task of
presenting the various options to the user (global, per domain, etc.).
Javascript
has allowed web sites and applications increased levels of functionality but at
the same time allowed for more possibilities of special effects and multimedia,
these are two seperate sides of the javascript coin and it would be useful to
have the former without being required to witness the latter.
One example I frequently use is google maps, which runs fine with javascript on
my low powered surfing laptop - until you change zoom levels - then it takes
over a minute to interpolate to the next zoom level, whilst this probably down
to
bad coding (a simple setTimeout for 2 seconds hence could force the
interpolation
effect to stop) it's a shame that this one effect brings the entire
web-application of google maps into an unusable state and personally i don't
think that the fact that my laptop doesnt have a GPU should mean i'm relegated
to
use the NOSCRIPT version of a site. For the sake of one flashy, un-needed
effect.
AFAIK there is a light version of google maps that uses little or no
javascript
but apart from the transition effect it runs fine. Which brings me back to the
proposal, if there were an AllowTransitions boolean that developers could
check
then they would know what experience to present the user with:
function Zoom_In()
{
if( window.UserPreferences.AllowTransitions )
Interpolate_To_Zoom( ++zoom );
else
Jump_To_Zoom( ++zoom );
}
this would still allow me to use the Javacsript map application on my low
powered
machine without resorting to a no-script-at-all version.
Another aspect is rich content, if i'm surfing whilst listening to mp3s i might
not want to be interrupted by sounds or videos playing and might want to turn
web-sounds off, or maybe i'm watching a movie on the train but dont want my web
mail to audibly alert me to a new mail message. Instead i could have a global
volume control (or per tab...) in my browser rather than the curernt situation
where you have to set it for each and every flash applet on each and every web
site. Also I might need roaming profiles, if I'm connected via WiFi i might be
happy to have videos playing, but if I'm out in the countryside, and i have a
limited/expensive GPRS data plan i dont want videos to suck up all my bandwidth
and money - if the browser could itself switch between high and low bandwidth
profiles then this would be a smoother user experience than again having to
bookmark a site's full and lite pages seperately, or have the site try to second
guess my desires through the capabilities my user agent string suggests.
Example properties might be:
MaxStreamRate (in Kb per seconds - with a popup warning the user if they attempt
to play something wider)
AutoPlayVideo (if false then video content should never start playing without a
direct click on a play button)
AutoPlayAudio (as above)
AudioVolume (0 = mute, 99 = full)
Note that the last two do not crosstalk - AutoPlayAudio may still be true if
AudioVolume is 0.
At the moment the user is at the whim of site builders about how to turn
features
on and of, stop and start audio, control volume or switch between lite and full
versions of sites. These sometimes need the user to be logged and/or cookies to
be remembered between sessions or instead the web host will simply attempt to
dictate the version of a site you get depending on your user agent string.
Currently most browsers allow images to be turned on and off very easily (albeit
usually buried deep in a menu tree). By centralising what it is the user wants
to
happen we can make the web a much more pleasant and consistent experience and
one
that is ready for users who may literally walk from a high bandwidth high
availability connection to a low bandwidth one whilst surfing - if their PDA or
laptop could hook into their connection settings and see that the connection
has switched wouldn't it be great if it could automatically tone the richness of
the web experience down with the user not having to lift a finger...
Revised Proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Jul/.html
Original Proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Apr/0003.html
Ric Hardacre
(MCAD, MCP, HTML,CSS JS hacker since '95)
cyclomedia.co.uk
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
As I said, I am working on a wf2 imnplementation library. I am aware of the ongoing project (http://code.google.com/p/webforms2/), but it was more fun doing this on my own. I implemented a whole lot of the spec, including repetition model. Everything is not quite mature yet, but I would like to share it with the world anyway. http://www.rikkertkoppes.com/thoughts/wf2/ Regards, Rikkert Koppes Ian Hickson schreef: On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Rikkert Koppes wrote: I am currently implementing a js library to make wf2 functionality available to legacy browsers (I know google is doing this too). Some things that came to mind are: - when validity flags are not set, should they equal null or false? False. Is the spec not clear on this? - this might have been proposed before: consider a reset() method for form controls and fieldsets You can already do this reasonably easily; I'm not sure an explicit API is really that useful. I'll bear it in mind though. - in this light: consider a clearable or resettable boolean attribute for inputs, which might display a clear button in the field, as seen in for example the mail filter in thunderbird. This should reset the control to the default value, ie calling the above reset() method, example formatting: +--- legend [x] ---+ | | |+--+ | || [x]| | |+--+ | +--+ which shows a clear button on a fieldset and input field. Note that Opera's date related fields also have an none button, which might be equivalent of the above That's just a UI detail. Nothing is stopping UA implementors from including this kind of UI today. - are negative years allowed (B.C.)? the datetime description tells me four or more digits (0 to 9) representing the year which implies no. use case: hystory questionary No, negative years aren't allowed. As has been pointed out by others, the date control isn't really that useful as defined today for non-contemporary dates. The use case is primarily e-commerce. Historical cases are far more complex, rarer, and probably need custom UI, and thus don't really fall in our 80% target. Let us know if there's anything else we can do to help with your implementation! Also, note that there's an implementors mailing list if you want to discuss implementation-specific details: http://www.whatwg.org/mailing-list#imps HTH,
[whatwg] (no subject)
I am currently implementing a js library to make wf2 functionality available to legacy browsers (I know google is doing this too). Some things that came to mind are: - when validity flags are not set, should they equal null or false? - this might have been proposed before: consider a reset() method for form controls and fieldsets - in this light: consider a clearable or resettable boolean attribute for inputs, which might display a clear button in the field, as seen in for example the mail filter in thunderbird. This should reset the control to the default value, ie calling the above reset() method, example formatting: +--- legend [x] ---+ | | |+--+ | || [x]| | |+--+ | +--+ which shows a clear button on a fieldset and input field. Note that Opera's date related fields also have an none button, which might be equivalent of the above - are negative years allowed (B.C.)? the datetime description tells me four or more digits (0 to 9) representing the year which implies no. use case: hystory questionary Regards, Rikkert Koppes
Re: [whatwg] (no subject)
Here is the existing cross-browser implementation of Web Forms 2.0: http://code.google.com/p/webforms2/ It's not a Google project; it is just hosted on Google Code. Regards, Weston On 8/28/07, Rikkert Koppes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently implementing a js library to make wf2 functionality available to legacy browsers (I know google is doing this too). Some things that came to mind are: - when validity flags are not set, should they equal null or false? - this might have been proposed before: consider a reset() method for form controls and fieldsets - in this light: consider a clearable or resettable boolean attribute for inputs, which might display a clear button in the field, as seen in for example the mail filter in thunderbird. This should reset the control to the default value, ie calling the above reset() method, example formatting: +--- legend [x] ---+ | | |+--+ | || [x]| | |+--+ | +--+ which shows a clear button on a fieldset and input field. Note that Opera's date related fields also have an none button, which might be equivalent of the above - are negative years allowed (B.C.)? the datetime description tells me four or more digits (0 to 9) representing the year which implies no. use case: hystory questionary Regards, Rikkert Koppes
[whatwg] (no subject)
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
