Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP

2009-12-03 Thread Stephen Jolly
On 2 Dec 2009, at 13:05, Marcin Hanclik wrote: I am sorry for bypassing earlier comments, I want to answer them anyway asap. So here comes short summary. What are we trying to solve? Forgetting the UPnP and related stacks, the issues can be summarized as follows: - pattern for IP

Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP

2009-12-03 Thread Robin Berjon
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:12 , Stephen Jolly wrote: Keeping things simple, the most compelling use case I can see (aka the one I care about...) is where the developer wants to write a widget that can access resources on a network with no centralised DNS or developer-predictable IP addresses.

Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December

2009-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote: Hi Art, Robin, Marcos, Thanks for your comments. Here is the consolidated answer. Just to clarify: I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the arrival of the comments. If

RE: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December

2009-12-03 Thread Marcin Hanclik
Hi Marcos, You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us to willfully violate the process? Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions. We have already aligned. Thanks. Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern issues once

Re: [widgets] CfC: to publish LC#2 of the WARP spec; deadline 2 December

2009-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
Marcin Hanclik wrote: Hi Marcos, You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us to willfully violate the process? Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions. We have already aligned. Thanks. Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise

Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP

2009-12-03 Thread Arve Bersvendsen
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:12:23 +0100, Stephen Jolly stephen.jo...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: Keeping things simple, the most compelling use case I can see (aka the one I care about...) is where the developer wants to write a widget that can access resources on a network with no centralised DNS or

Re: [widgets] Interface published

2009-12-03 Thread Kai Hendry
2009/11/30 Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com:  widget.getItem(name) Revolutionary? Well, if you're in business selling keyboards and RSI relief, maybe. I thought it might save on DOM pollution. I have been playing with a debugger and the global vars passed between the Web runtime and debugger are

[widgets] Draft Minutes for 3 December 2009 Voice Conference

2009-12-03 Thread Arthur Barstow
The draft minutes from the 3 December Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before 10 December 2009

XHR LC

2009-12-03 Thread Julian Reschke
Hi, here's a very generic comment... did the browser makers that are present over here actually try to update their implementations to what XHR specifies? Or are they actually waiting for it to progress? The reason I'm asking is the frustrating level of support for HTTP extension methods;

Re: XHR LC

2009-12-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, here's a very generic comment... did the browser makers that are present over here actually try to update their implementations to what XHR specifies? Or are they actually waiting for it to progress? The reason

Re: Wiki for WebApps' Database, Storage, AppCache and related specs

2009-12-03 Thread Jeremy Orlow
Thanks Art and Nikunj! Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we change for WebStorage: StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're actually one of the greatest strengths of the WebStorage API. Right now, there's a no for atomicity, concurrency-error-free

Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP, was: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 19 November 2009 Voice Conference

2009-12-03 Thread Frederick Hirsch
+1, duplicating material is a recipe for disaster. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:22 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: On Dec 1, 2009, at 22:22 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: Can you please update this to just be a delta? As far as I know W3C specs, delta documents are

Re: [widgets] test-cases for icons: some possible errors

2009-12-03 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote: Some more potential test case errors and fixes: == bl.wgt ✔ Tests the UA's ability to locate an icon in a locale folder and at the root of the widget. To pass, after processing, the icons list must

Re: Wiki for WebApps' Database, Storage, AppCache and related specs

2009-12-03 Thread Nikunj R. Mehta
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: Thanks Art and Nikunj! Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we change for WebStorage: StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're actually one of the greatest strengths of the WebStorage API. You are

RE: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP, was: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 19 November 2009 Voice Conference

2009-12-03 Thread Marcin Hanclik
I agree with the principle. I hope this approach could propagate to other specs and WGs, like Geo API etc. It is probably too late for some other specs, though. Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646

Re: Wiki for WebApps' Database, Storage, AppCache and related specs

2009-12-03 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.comwrote: On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: Thanks Art and Nikunj! Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we change for WebStorage: StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're

Re: Feedback on the Strict-Transport-Security specification (part 1)

2009-12-03 Thread =JeffH
[Apologies for latency, I was pretty much buried/OOTO during Nov.] Many thanks to EricLaw for his detailed review, and to Adam for the detailed reply. Below is my build on Adam's responses (part 1). In a separate msg (part 2), I'll respond to the (editorial) items that Adam didn't address.

Re: Feedback on the Strict-Transport-Security specification (part 2)

2009-12-03 Thread =JeffH
This addresses the remaining items in EricLaw's feedback. I have a -06 spec rev opened up and spread around the garage here with various fixes enhancements in progress... =JeffH -- Editorial issues [Section: Abstract] defines a mechanism to enabling Web sites fixed in -06.

Re: Microsoft pre-LCWD feedback on WebSocket API

2009-12-03 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Adrian Bateman wrote: 1) In the WebSocket constructor, we think it would make sense to limit the optional protocol string to a set of characters that is easier to secure. The UI never surfaces this string and having something that doesn't require processing the full

Re: Feedback on WebSocket API, Editor's Draft 13 November 2009.

2009-12-03 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Sebastian Andersson wrote: I have a few problems with the WebSocket API as it is described. If the client is sending too much data to the server, I don't want it to be disconnected just because some buffer is temporarily full, but that is the required semantics of the

Ready for LC on the various drafts I edit

2009-12-03 Thread Ian Hickson
As predicted last week [1], I have replied to the outstanding issues that had been raised on the following specs, and thus am ready to suggest that we take these specs to LC to get wider review: http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/

Re: The most basic File API use case

2009-12-03 Thread Eric Uhrhane
Peter: Thanks for sending this and the previous email. I'm sorry about the slow response; it arrived just as I went away on holiday. On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Peter O. Ussuri uss...@threetags.com wrote: The current File API draft lets a web app to read the file, but there seems