Hi all,
I was reviewing the overview of the test suite [1] and also the compatibility
matrix document [2]. I had two questions.
Why do the names of the tests have to be so cryptic (e.g. ta-RRZxvvTFHx,
ta-dxzVDWpaWg, ...)? Could you use meaningful names like default-start-file-01,
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le mardi 03 novembre 2009 à 21:27 -0800, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
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:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
My
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
This should be a bit more exact as to how the mediaType is returned. I
would prefer ASCII-lowercase.
Done.
Returning application/octet-stream rather than null also seems
better if the type is not known. That way you do not have to type
check. Other parts of the
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It might make sense to rename INITIAL to EMPTY for consistency with
HTMLMediaElement. Instead of LOADING READING might be better though I
care less about that one.
Done, but I'll point out that this isn't *exactly* consistent with
HTMLMediaElement. I agree that
Le vendredi 13 novembre 2009 à 02:28 -0800, Arun Ranganathan a écrit :
Discussion about renaming shows that there isn't really consensus about
a name change [1][2], so I haven't proceeded with one. I'd rather
proceed without a name change for now, but work towards evolving file
write
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The name of the file as a UTF8-encoded string. A DOMString is not
UTF-8-encoded. I think this should just say Returns the filename.
It is not more complicated than that as far as I can tell.
There are some
Hi all,
I do not know exactly if this issue/question was already discussed on this
ML, but I didn't find anything in the archive that made it clear.
I'm writing an interface, which has an operation that takes multiple
attributes. However, the last attribute is quasi-optional and should be
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:03:35 +0100, Steffen Krüssel
steffen.krues...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I do not know exactly if this issue/question was already discussed on
this
ML, but I didn't find anything in the archive that made it clear.
I'm writing an interface, which has an operation
Greetings Dom!
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
I alluded to this during the joint F2F meeting between WebApps and DAP
last week, but thought I would make the proposal more formally: given
that the current “File API” [1] really defines a FileReader interface,
and given that DAP is supposed to
2009/11/13 Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:03:35 +0100, Steffen Krüssel
steffen.krues...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I do not know exactly if this issue/question was already discussed on this
ML, but I didn't find anything in the archive that made it clear.
I'm
Hi Devdatta,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Devdatta dev.akh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tyler,
Some parts of the protocol are not clear to me. Can you please clarify
the following :
1 In msg 1, what script context is the browser running in ? Site A or
Site B ? (in other words who initiates
Some parts of the protocol are not clear to me. Can you please clarify
the following :
1 In msg 1, what script context is the browser running in ? Site A or
Site B ? (in other words who initiates the whole protocol ?)
Server A, or a bookmark.
Wasn't Maciej's original scenario that of a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi all,
I was reviewing the overview of the test suite [1] and also the
compatibility matrix document [2]. I had two questions.
Why do the names of the tests have to be so cryptic (e.g. ta-RRZxvvTFHx,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Opera 9.5 running on Windows Mobile 6.1 and Opera 10 running on PC both allow
access to scripts and images from different domains than a widget was
obtained from. I have tested this and can provide
14 matches
Mail list logo
