Hi, Arthur, all.
Thank you for pointing some resource and providing description.
I understand with regret there isn't APIs which will be fixed or
implemented in the near future.
Regards.
--shumpei
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
WebApps does
Hopefully further (correct) examples are here:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/test-suite-unstable.xml
Review is very welcome,
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Per-Erik Brodin wrote:
When parsing an event stream, allowing carriage return, carriage return
line feed, and line feed to denote line endings introduces unnecessary
ambiguity into the spec. For example, the sequence \r\r\n\n could be
interpreted
I think the first document should be re-titled (since it isn't generic
to XML Signature 1.1):
Widgets 1.0: Test Suite for Widget Signature 1.0
It also seems we have two types of tests:
1. syntactic tests that check the presence and placement of XML
material - such as locating the signature
The draft minutes from the October 8 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/08-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 15 October 2009
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:06:27 +0200, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am looking at the current Working Draft of the XHR spec at the end
of section 4.6.3
http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#the-send-method
Unless set through setRequestHeader() user agents should set the
Accept
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:34:11 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On Apr 14, 2009, at 6:33 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
So, to pick up on this discussion again -- I don't think we've had a
useful conclusion whether or not the client-side JavaScript code ought
to explicitly
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:22:35 +0200, Henry S. Thompson h...@inf.ed.ac.uk
wrote:
One point of clarification: my (admittedly imperfect) understanding
was that the most important parts of CORS have to be implemented
_server_-side for the proposal to achieve its goals. If that's true,
browser
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:58:22 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
[...]
I realize this discussion was well over a year ago. I imagine Gecko has
meanwhile dealt with the compatibility issues so we can probably keep it
in the specification if you can confirm that. (And add it to
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:24:48 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It would change the conformance criteria. I'm not sure that's a good
idea. Especially since the use case put forward is mostly theoretical.
Overall, I'm still not convinced this is a good idea.
Hi Art,
Would the following suffice?
[[
Authoring Guidelines: The only mandatory element in a configuration
document is the widget element. All other elements and their
respective attributes are optional. The following example shows the
smallest possible configuration document that a user agent
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:47:55 +0200, Steven Pemberton
steven.pember...@cwi.nl wrote:
Thanks for your reply. (We are assuming that this is not a formal reply
from the webapps WG.)
I'm not sure if I replied to this already. We meanwhile published a draft
and will probably do a formal Last
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:34:11 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On Apr 14, 2009, at 6:33 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
So, to pick up on this discussion again -- I don't think we've had a
useful
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:59:56 +0200, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
wrote:
This is my first TPAC. How does one put something on the agenda?
I added it here for you as I suppose you do not have a wiki account:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009APIs#Agenda_Items
Otherwise I
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:22:35 +0200, Henry S. Thompson h...@inf.ed.ac.uk
wrote:
One point of clarification: my (admittedly imperfect) understanding
was that the most important parts of CORS have to be implemented
Hello Arthur et al.
The scenario that you point out is very interesting and is mentioned in Use
Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 .
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090604/#req-r01
We will publish a First Public Working Draft of API for Media
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:07:29 +0200, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com
wrote:
The core criticism that several of us have raised about CORS has never
been addressed -- that it creates further confused deputy problems.
Rather than addressing the first order confused deputy problem of
CSRF, it
Leaving some of the questions for arun
- wouldn't FileStatus be a better name than FileError, given that it can
also contain a success code?
Actually, we should probably follow HTMLs lead here and design this
like the HTMLMediaElement.error property. So make it only contain
error codes.
-
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could
reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an existing scheme,
but not sure if he looked at the 'urn' scheme.
Would it need to be urn:somename:uuid though? like urn:fileid:uuid?
...
What's
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:32 +0200, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could
reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an existing scheme,
but not sure if he looked at the 'urn' scheme.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could
reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an existing scheme,
but not sure if he looked at the 'urn' scheme.
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
...
What's wrong with urn:uuid, which is defined in RFC 4122 and already
cited?
You need to know what the URL is for in other contexts. It seems nicer
if that is explicit from the scheme rather than some additional bit of
data that is attached to the uuid.
The Patent Advisory Group that was formed for the Widgets 1.0 Updates
spec has now closed and the PAG recommends the work continue.
The PAG's Final Report is:
http://www.w3.org/2009/03/widgets-pag/pagreport.html
The PAG concluded Apple's patent is considered not essential to the
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:32 +0200, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could
reuse an existing one. I know Arun was
Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi,
here are a few comments after a superficial read of
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.html:
- wouldn't FileStatus be a better name than FileError, given that it
can also contain a success code?
I'm in the process of updating the spec. to
One use case is to show a tooltip of the word's definition in your
accept-language when you mouse over the word in a page.
It needs to
1. convert the mouse position to character offset within a node (by
Document.caretRangeFromPoint()http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#the-documentview-interface),
On 10/8/09 10:07 PM, Xiaomei Ji wrote:
One use case is to show a tooltip of the word's definition in your
accept-language when you mouse over the word in a page.
It needs to
1. convert the mouse position to character offset within a node (by
Document.caretRangeFromPoint()
Bcc to: www-...@w3.org and public-pkg-uri-sch...@w3.org
On Oct 8 WebApps WG published a Last Call Working Draft of the
Widgets 1.0: Widgets URIs spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20091008/
The deadline for comments is 10 November and all comments should be
sent to public
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
- why is a new URI scheme needed? Can't you just use urn:uuid?
I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could
reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an existing scheme,
but not sure if he looked at the 'urn'
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
- why is a new URI scheme needed? Can't you just use urn:uuid?
I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could
reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an
30 matches
Mail list logo
