What about [ESNativeObject]?
Regarding the whole use case (PositionOptions and its usage in Geo spec,
similar use cases in many BONDI modules) that ignited this mail thread, in
BONDI we consider the proposal of [Enumerable] extended attribute for
interfaces (suggested off-line by Cameron) and [
"Nikunj R. Mehta" , 2009-06-30 14:54 -0700:
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>
> > "Nikunj R. Mehta" , 2009-06-30 09:12 -0700:
> >> I was inquiring about the term "property enumeration"
> >
> > I think in this case it means iterating over the Storage object to
> > get a l
Thanks.
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:c...@mcc.id.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:36 AM
To: Marcin Hanc
>>Ah I see the confusion is more about how strongly the ‘|’ operator
>>binds compared to adjacent symbols.
Yes. I am more used to ABNF, thus my request.
Thanks for your follow-up.
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
Marcin Hanclik:
> > I had the following problem:
> >
> > [45]ScopedName -> "::" ScopedNameAfterColon
> > | identifier ScopedNameParts
> > Where I assumed that each ScopedName has to start with "::", because
> > according to ABNF this production has to be written as
> > [45ABNF]S
Marcin Hanclik:
> I had the following problem:
>
> [45]ScopedName -> "::" ScopedNameAfterColon
> | identifier ScopedNameParts
> Where I assumed that each ScopedName has to start with "::", because
> according to ABNF this production has to be written as
> [45ABNF]ScopedName
Cameron McCormack:
> I think it might be useful for someone to just publish versions of
> existing DOM specs’ IDL as Web IDL. I’m willing to help with that.
I just added the IDL for various DOM specs, converted to Web IDL:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/dom/
and I:
* moved some excep
Hi Cameron,
>>If you can suggest some
>>specific points that need clarification, I will add some more prefatory
>>text.
I had the following problem:
[45]ScopedName -> "::" ScopedNameAfterColon
| identifier ScopedNameParts
Where I assumed that each ScopedName has to start with "::", beca
On Jun 30, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Hi Steffen, Giovanni.
Giovanni Campagna:
[Callback], despite the names, does not mean that the interface will
be called back by a method accepting it (although that was the
initial
use case). It barely means that you can convert an Obje
On Jun 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak:
WebKit doesn't have the same technical constraints as Mozilla,
however
this change doesn't really seem helpful and it would be annoying to
have
to replace all instances of DOMString in our existing IDL.
find . -nam
On Wednesday 2009-07-01 13:02 +1000, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> I meant to do that initially, dunno what went wrong. Should be fixed
> now.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-obtain-unicode
Looks good to me.
-David
--
L. David Baron http://dbaron.o
Hi Steffen, Giovanni.
Giovanni Campagna:
> [Callback], despite the names, does not mean that the interface will
> be called back by a method accepting it (although that was the initial
> use case). It barely means that you can convert an Object (in the
> ECMAScript sense) to an object in the WebID
Hi David.
L. David Baron:
> This algorithm seems incorrect in two ways:
>
> * It gets the ranges for high and low surrogates backwards. (High
>surrogates are U+D800 - U+DBFF, low surrogates are U+DC00 -
>U+DFFF, and in UTF-16 a surrogate pair is a high surrogate
>followed by a low s
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
With that in mind, do you still think it makes sense to have progress
events and all the other events you are proposing?
>
Boris Zbarsky:
> Are we going to rewrite the existing DOM spec idl to the new syntax as
> needed (e.g getElementsByTagNameNS)?
I do think somebody needs to do that. I don’t think it’s sufficient
(even before this syntax change) to just rely on interepreting the OMG
IDL published in DOM Core as
Hi Marcin.
Marcin Hanclik:
> Could we have the Web IDL grammar in ABNF?
> I think ABNF is quite well adopted on the market.
I think using ABNF would make the grammar harder to read, since ABNF
quoted terminals are case insensitive, and must be written out as %xHH
characters to get case insensitiv
Cameron McCormack wrote:
Boris Zbarsky:
I thought there had been at least some mention of this colliding with
existing string types in IDLs that are already in use? I know this will
make it much harder for Mozilla to use webidl IDL fragments "as is"...
Yes, but then Jonas replied saying th
Cameron McCormack:
> * Renamed DOMString to string:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-string
Boris Zbarsky:
> I thought there had been at least some mention of this colliding with
> existing string types in IDLs that are already in use? I know this will
> make it much harder for M
On Jun 30, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Robert Sayre wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky
wrote:
Cameron McCormack wrote:
* Renamed DOMString to string:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-string
Yeah, I don't see much benefit to th
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> With that in mind, do you still think it makes sense to have progress
>>> events and all the other events you are proposing?
>>
>> I've reread my message. The arguments and reasoning gi
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > Cameron McCormack wrote:
> >>
> >> * Renamed DOMString to string:
> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-string
>
> Yeah, I don't see much benefit to this.
I agree; I think this is jus
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> With that in mind, do you still think it makes sense to have progress
>> events and all the other events you are proposing?
>
> I've reread my message. The arguments and reasoning given for Events
> seem clear and concise. The argument for Pr
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> Progress-type Events are useful because the API is asynchronous.
>> What if reading the file times out?
>>
>> If an entire directory is uploaded, as in the Picasa-style example,
>> when
On Wednesday 2009-06-17 16:26 +1000, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Jonas Sicking:
> > Yes, I don't see how we could handle this in WebIDL, other than
> > defining that all DOMStrings must be structurally correct UTF-16.
> > However that would be prohibitively expensive since we would have to
> > add c
Aaron,
Thanks for updating the Gears documentation!
Ok, it's live now. You can check out the Blob.getBytes() method here:
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_blob.html
There appears to be general support for "byte ranged" FileData objects.
FileData (from which File inherits) will conta
On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
"Nikunj R. Mehta" , 2009-06-30 09:12 -0700:
My question was not clear
Sorry, after re-reading it, I can see now that it was actually
pretty clear -- I just misunderstood.
I was inquiring about the term "property enumeration" and not
"s
Ok, it's live now. You can check out the Blob.getBytes() method here:
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_blob.html
And the new BlobBuilder object here:
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_blobbuilder.html
- a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> It actually does in the
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Cameron McCormack wrote:
>>
>> * Renamed DOMString to string:
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-string
Yeah, I don't see much benefit to this.
--
Robert Sayre
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the
Cameron McCormack wrote:
* Renamed DOMString to string:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-string
I thought there had been at least some mention of this colliding with
existing string types in IDLs that are already in use? I know this will
make it much harder for Mozilla to use
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> Or use index.html in other directories?
>
> Nothing. Treated as an arbitrary file - this was already implied in
> the spec. To make this explicitly clear, I've added:
speaking of which,
does foo magically map to a file?
i'm assuming we're
It actually does in the latest version. Blob has a getBytes() method.
You can also concatenate blobs together using a new object called a
BlobBuilder.
I'm in the process of updating the docs and will report back when done.
- a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 6/30/09 4:07
"Nikunj R. Mehta" , 2009-06-30 09:12 -0700:
> My question was not clear
Sorry, after re-reading it, I can see now that it was actually
pretty clear -- I just misunderstood.
> I was inquiring about the term "property enumeration" and not
> "storage mutex".
I think in this case it means itera
2009/6/30 Kruessel, Steffen :
> Hi Giovanni,
>
> Thank you very much for the explanation. I think I do understand now, but I
> also think the description as well as the name may be adjusted to something
> more meaningful.
>
> Just one final question. If I define a valuetype of a specified interfa
My question was not clear - I was inquiring about the term "property
enumeration" and not "storage mutex". Similarly, I also wanted to know
the meaning of "checking the presence of a property".
Thanks,
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote
"Nikunj R. Mehta" , 2009-06-29 11:04 -0700:
> There is a requirement to obtain the storage mutex prior to performing
> Storage interface operations on the localStorage DOM attribute.
>
> Section 3.4 asks for obtaining the storage mutex during property
> enumeration, although this term is no
Hi Giovanni,
Thank you very much for the explanation. I think I do understand now, but I
also think the description as well as the name may be adjusted to something
more meaningful.
Just one final question. If I define a valuetype of a specified interface,
which is then again used as a paramet
One additional question regarding a cross-site get (using browser here
for simplicity of terms) (for example, see [1])
Is it true that
1. the GET results in the content being returned on the wire with a
Access-Control-Allow-Origin header
2. the browser then checks this header and enforces
I have some basic comments and questions on "Cross-Origin Resource
Sharing", W3C Working Draft 17 March 2009
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-cors-20090317/
Perhaps some of these have been answered already and there are
probably others I did not list.
1. GET can have side effects, so can we ass
2009/6/30 Kruessel, Steffen :
> Hi Marcin, Hi Cameron,
>
> My name is Steffen Krüssel and I am participating in the BONDI initiative,
> especially in the interface specification for camera and geolocation.
> Regarding your conversation about the current geolocation IDL, I just want to
> clarify
Hi Kai,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Kai Hendry wrote:
> What happens if people sprinkle icon.pngs for use in their own application?
Nothing. "A default icon is an reserved icon whose file name
case-sensitively and exactly matches a file name given in the
file-name column of the default icons
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's a list I've collected of things that still need to be done to A+E (I
> did an editorial pass today). It might not be complete, others are more than
> welcome to add to it:
>
> - viewMode needs to refer to Widgets-WM. Can we agre
On 6/30/09 4:07 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 6/30/09 1:44 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I'd rather just have an API that lets you split a File into a
sequence(where FileData is what File inherits from) of equally
sized chunks, or something like t
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 6/30/09 1:44 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather just have an API that lets you split a File into a
>> sequence (where FileData is what File inherits from) of equally
>> sized chunks, or something like that, than something that lets you
Hi Marcin, Hi Cameron,
My name is Steffen Krüssel and I am participating in the BONDI initiative,
especially in the interface specification for camera and geolocation. Regarding
your conversation about the current geolocation IDL, I just want to clarify the
meaning of the [Callback] extended at
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> It would actually be nice if a Zip archive with a single folder was allowed
> so you could just package a folder as Zip and ship it. Is that deliberately
> excluded?
>
Yes, this is deliberately excluded in 1.0. Although that would be a
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:20:25 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>> "TO BE WRITTEN, PLEASE IGNORE" if normative material is yet to be
>>> written you cannot enter Last Call. Per
>>
On 6/30/09 1:44 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Olli Pettay wrote:
File API should probably have some way to get only parts of the file.
getAsXXX(long long offset, long long length). Then uploading huge files
could be split and decoding video (or something like that) in JS might bec
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> This has the same problem with file-extension requiring a leading dot and the
> table not having any.
I've added these now. I've made sure all tables containing file names
and extensions are more consistent. These include:
* Reserved Fi
Hi Cameron,
Could we have the Web IDL grammar in ABNF?
I think ABNF is quite well adopted on the market.
Otherwise, I think we could have more formal description of the grammar used in
the current Web IDL spec, since it is easy now to misunderstand it having the
ABNF syntax used in other specs.
Hi!
The webstorage specification needs an API to delete a database, because there's
no such way to do it currently.
Something like deleteDatabase(name) would be good. And after calling it, all
open transactions would be marked as invalid.
The user agent could then delete the data on disk and do
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Olli Pettay wrote:
>
> File API should probably have some way to get only parts of the file.
> getAsXXX(long long offset, long long length). Then uploading huge files
> could be split and decoding video (or something like that) in JS might become
> possible.
> This is somethin
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, I hadn't seen that this was also posted publicly.
>
> On Jun 29, 2009, at 20:23 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>
>>> The current Widgets-update Specification
>>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
>>> contains in 12.3 a desc
On 6/19/09 6:00 AM, timeless wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Hixie, I think a Base64 representation of the file resource may be
sufficient, particularly for the image use case (which is how it is used
already). Can you flesh out why the new schema is a good idea
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> Progress-type Events are useful because the API is asynchronous.
> What if reading the file times out?
>
> If an entire directory is uploaded, as in the Picasa-style example,
> when does the "success" callback fire?
> 1) after all files in "s
Hi Marcos,
thanks for your effort. See below for specific points. (Marked accordingly,
see end of this e-mail for the legend.)
On 29.6.2009 13.30, "ext Marcos Caceres" wrote:
> Hi Jere,
>
> Fixes and some questions below. I got stuck on your last point, can
> you please clarify it or suggest m
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It would be nice if we could find a way to make things more rigorous
with a mechanism that's convenient to both spec writers and browser
developers.
On possibility: we could consistently use module
Cameron McCormack:
> Following are my half baked proposals.
I’ve now baked all of these proposals into the spec, except for the one
about allowing multiple module levels with a module declaration (i.e.,
‘module a::b::c’).
* Made ‘in’ optional
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-operat
57 matches
Mail list logo
