On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item12
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0477.html
From a technical point of view, are we expecting that there will
actually be
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Hi Marcos,
To be clear, your answer addresses point (2) only, and while I realize that the
idea proposed may not apply to all valid start files, it nonetheless did
address the point of the comment. It may not be the best solution but it is
just a start on
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C library
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com:
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of
view modes: the difference between maximised and fullscreen (or
perhaps fullscreen and all-screen).
Maximised is the case in which the
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C
library independent? Obviously
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
* SQL doesn't give any performance guarantees. Many times people tweak
their SQL in order to get the implementation to use a desired
evaluation stategy. This won't work in the likely event that different
implementations
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com:
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of view
modes: the difference between maximised and fullscreen (or
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
If that were the extent of the implementation, I might agree. However, that
doesn't accurately characterize at least WebKit's WebDatabase
implementation. WebKit has around 15k lines of code which implement
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I agree that your Gecko example would be questionable. But to give an
example on the other side of the fence, WebKit uses a copy of Mozilla's
image decoding code, and yet I think our implementation of the img element
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:44:09 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
At the Web Apps WG face-to-face meeting at TPAC, all parties agreed (in
the room at least) to let the spec continue without fully specifying the
SQL dialect.
This is not at all the sense that I got. Hixie agreed
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Bil Corry b...@corry.biz wrote:
How does the server identify the STS clients? If there isn't a way (which I
don't believe there is), then given the STS requirement that a server should
redirect from non-HTTPS to HTTPS, what does that mean for UAs that don't
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
I support the publication as well.
-Sam
On Nov 9, 2009, at 13:05 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com:
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of
view
modes: the
I support publishing this document as a FPWD.
Adam
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
(FPWD) of the File API spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 16:41 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
That would be 'application', but not maximized.
Uh, but those can be two different windowing modes, with the chrome
subtly different and different behaviour (e.g. the window can't be
dragged if maximised).
That's UA/OS dependent.
How it is
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
* SQL doesn't give any performance guarantees. Many times people tweak
their SQL in order to get the implementation to use a desired
evaluation
Shared workers do not depend on HTML documents for resource loading. I think
the webkit impl may have it cobbled together that way at the moment, but
thats per-happen-stance, not per-the-spec.
Shared workers effectively establish a new top-level-browsing-context all
unto themselves.
On Mon, Nov
The specific implementation of SharedWorkers in WebKit does this currently,
but that is not a feature of the spec - I have this on my todo list to
resolve once I've finished the Chromium version of shared workers.
-atw
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov a...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
5) I would summarize the tradeoff between this mechanism for a simple
cross-site communication scenario vs. the CORS way to do it as follows:
a) In the CORS-based protocol, if you change the scenario in a way that
Marcos,
Re I'm personally not in favor of trying to deviate too much from the Web
security model.: I agree with you, and that is the point of the comments. The
web security model (I think you mean the same-origin restriction) does not
restrict access to image content from anywhere, like the
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Please send in use cases, requirements, concerns, and concrete
suggestions about the general topic (regardless of your opinion about my
suggestion).
Some use cases:
* Ability to manage attachments in Web-based mail clients, both receiving
and
Hi Adam,
It's too bad you didn't CC me on the discussion because I think you
misunderstood several of my points.
Thanks. We've actually discussed your emails in meetings. I'm glad you've
cleared up our misunderstanding.
Then what are you taking about? I've attached two screen shots of
Hi Nikunj,
I find the subjects of programmable caches and local http servers highly
interesting for the browser. The below comments and questions are from a
quick read-through of the supplied links, so please excuse any
misunderstandings:
1) API orthogonality
The spec invents yet another
On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking
jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
* SQL doesn't give any performance guarantees. Many times people
tweak
their SQL in order
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think the likely outcome of the current situation will be that
new mobile
browsers will have a harder time establishing themselves in the
market,
since many popular mobile web apps will be using a database
technology where
the
Hi Kris,
Thanks for the insightful feedback.
On Nov 7, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
Is there any intended restrictions on caching of objects returned by
queries and gets with WebSimpleDB?
Currently, the spec does specify any required behavior in terms of
caching objects. As an
Collin Jackson wrote on 11/8/2009 11:06 PM:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Bil Corry b...@corry.biz wrote:
How does the server identify the STS clients? If there isn't a way (which I
don't believe there is), then given the STS requirement that a server should
redirect from non-HTTPS to
29 matches
Mail list logo
