What about the following scenario:
1. A page on site A initiates a DELETE request to a uri on site B
2. The UA makes a preflight OPTIONS request to the uri on site B
3. The site responds and says the original DELETE request is ok
4. The UA makes the DELETE request to site B
5. The site
I agree with both of Marcos's points here.
I support postponing elliptic curve to later version
I also agree restricting x509 to version 3 is ok
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: Wednesday,
My regrets for this call. One input however, in the last F2F there was a call
for more editors to help speed up the widgets work (part of the AI to Dave
Rogers). Please let me know which specs need editors, and I will make a
proposal on where I can help.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:28:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
I think it is wrong to make content non-conforming because it fires
events in a fashion that isn't consistent with this draft.
These are conformance requirements.
(Finally, some progress!)
Hopefully I have resolved ISSUE-79 raised by Ian, by removing the
requirement that lengthComputable be clamped by the user agent.
So the question is whether this draft is ready for last call. Ideally
there would be test cases available, and more examples, but
Dear Art,
Thanks for the email. Please see my comments inline marked [DAVID].
David,
Since many of WebApps' members are not familiar with OMTP and BONDI, I
have a some first order process-related questions regarding the proposed
Release Candidate (RC). I'll withhold other comments e.g
The URL for public archive of comments:
http://bondi.omtp.org/Lists/BONDI%2010%20CR%20%20Feedback/AllItems.aspx
Dr. Nick Allott
Chief Technology Officer
OMTP - BONDI
From: David Rogers
Sent: 05 March 2009 14:06
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org;
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/#locating-signatures
4.3
If the signatures list is not empty, sort the list of signatures by the file
name field in descending order (e.g. signature001.xml followed by
signature9.xml followed by signature.xml).
How do you sort signature009.xml and
Ian Hickson wrote:
However, I don't think the things tested in 002 are controversal. In
particular, all the UAs have converged on the behaviour tested by 002-001
for other objects
Ah, that wasn't the case last I checked. And again, there's no
specification I can find that requires it.
On Mar 5, 2009, at 14:15 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
So the question is whether this draft is ready for last call.
Ideally there would be test cases available, and more examples, but
those are not requirements (although I welcome anybody producing
them).
I'd go to LC as that's the
The minutes from the March 5 Widgets voice conference are available
at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 12 March 2009 (the next
Josh,
This does not seem quite right since it requires 10 or more signatures?
e.g. disallows signature01.xml, signature02.xml etc
and requires signature10.xml etc
---
I propose the following alternative in section 5.3
Naming convention for a distributor signature:signature [0-9]* .xml
Every
I updated the style for code items in the Digital Signature
specification to brown.
Does this work better? It does not conflict with other color uses as
far as I can tell.
Please look at
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/ (refresh)
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:54:38 +0100, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 14:15 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
So the question is whether this draft is ready for last call. Ideally
there would be test cases available, and more examples, but those are
not requirements
Easier on the eye, but to me it's pretty close to the color of RFC 2119 keyword
style (em.ct).
Seems like the body text font has grown in size somewhat, compared to other
specs.
--Jere
On 5.3.2009 18.03, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston)
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
I updated the
yes that has been the case ever since I've started working on this.
Perhaps there is a W3C standard stylesheet we should be using. I'm not
sure why the spec defines its own styles
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Kapyaho Jere (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere)
I have updated the Widgets 1.0 Signature editors draft [1] as follows:
1) Added new section Locating and Processing Widget Signatures as
noted on today's call.
This section contains material that was formerly in the Packaging and
Configuration Specification.
2) Updated the definitions
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:15 AM, I wrote:
The proposal is to only allow [1-9][0-9]*, which should solve this.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Frederick Hirsch
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
This does not seem quite right since it requires 10 or more signatures?
e.g. disallows signature01.xml,
how about simple italics for code?
I'll also look into reducing body text
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
yes that has been the case ever since I've started working on this.
Perhaps there is a W3C standard
During the March 5 widgets voice conference, the group agreed [1]
this issue can be closed since the latest version of the Widgets
Digital Signature spec [2] address this issues' concerns.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/05-wam-minutes.html#item04
[2]
Mark - during the March 5 widgets voice conference we discussed this
issue that you raised [1]. Marcos created this issue from the
following e-mail thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/
0521.html
A couple of the people on the call asked for some more
Arve, I'm glad you find a way to push this in! ;)
Regards
---
Ivan De Marino
Orange Labs
Mobile and Web Software Engineer, RD UK
tel. +44 20 8849 5806
mob. +44 7515 955 861
mob. +44 7974 156 216
ivan.demar...@orange-ftgroup.com
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, is intended only
well I wonder why this regex disallow all multiple of 10
signature10.xml is not possible any more
Xmlizer
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Frederick Hirsch
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
I see, perhaps we can combine the text I proposed with a variant on the bnf
you mentioned;
Hi, WebApps WG-
Please be advised that Apple has disclosed a patent [1][2] and excluded
claims from the W3C Royalty-Free License commitment of the W3C Patent
Policy [3], for the Widgets 1.0: Updates specification [4].
The W3C Team, in conjunction with the Chairs and Apple, are now
following
24 matches
Mail list logo
