On 9 Dec 2009, at 23:34, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2009, at 14:31 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Actually, I have a problem with the way the test suite result are
expressed. Since there is no normative algorithm for the
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
If you're willing to tolerate a little bit of implementation mechanism,
I can do you one better on the UI side.
Generally speaking, server-to-server communication is highly undesireable,
as it requires far more work on all sides.
From the user's
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:22:08 +0100, Robin Berjon ro...@robineko.com
wrote:
Note, I'm replying to both lists, but have set reply-to to
public-device-apis
as discussed in the joint WebApps API - DAP face to face, here is a
rough proposal for the Directories and System parts of the File
On 3 Dec 2009, at 11:24, Robin Berjon wrote:
It would be really great if you were to join this group. If you are already
following this list, and willing to make implementation proposals, it
wouldn't necessarily take more of your time than it already does — probably
no more than an extra
The draft minutes from the MMM DD Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 17 December 2009 (the
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
If you're willing to tolerate a little bit of implementation mechanism,
I can do you one better on the UI side.
Generally speaking, server-to-server communication is highly undesireable,
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
OK, here's a fuller description of the exchange, that also meets the new
requirement of no server-to-server communication:
Initial assumptions:
- Site A wants to give Site B access to all user feeds.
- Site A and Site B do *not* share a username
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
I lean toward an input
element that requires a user action to bring up the dialog box, but
I'm still thinking about it.
Currently, a user action is needed to trigger the download/save as
prompt, as most browsers will block
Hi Robin,
Glad to see this initial draft!
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
[Constructor(DOMString mediaType, DOMString fileName)]
interface FileWriter {
// saving operations
void save (DOMString content, optional DOMString encoding, optional
CORS and Uniform Messaging People,
We are now just a few weeks away from the February 2006 start of what
has now become the CORS spec. In those four years, the model has been
significantly improved, Microsoft deployed XDR, we now have the
Uniform Messaging counter-proposal. Meanwhile, the
- 4.3.2. Changes to the networking model
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/#networking-model-changes
There are a couple cases I expected to see in the networking changes.
1. There are two branches to Step 10 for off-line and online handling. Both
start with:
[[
10.1 Select an `embedded
The specification does not say when a CacheTransaction's status changes to
committed. This should be a trivial addition.
- 4.2.2. Constructing and modifying data caches
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/#transaction-status
The spec outlines three states of a CacheTransaction:
[[ Each
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
CORS and Uniform Messaging People,
We are now just a few weeks away from the February 2006 start of what has
now become the CORS spec. In those four years, the model has been
significantly improved, Microsoft
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
That looks _really_ complicated.
By many measures, your CORS based solution is more complicated.
The measure I care about is how easy is it to explain and implement. By
that measure,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote:
CORS and Uniform Messaging People,
We are now just a few weeks away from the February 2006 start of what has
now become the CORS spec. In those four years, the model has been
significantly improved, Microsoft
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Peter O. Ussuri uss...@threetags.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
I lean toward an input
element that requires a user action to bring up the dialog box, but
I'm still thinking about it.
Currently, a user action
Again the examples seem out of date. I'll update the remaining examples. Sorry
for not consolidating all of them into one email!
- 4.1.1. Examples
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/#examples
The second example seems to be out of date for a number of reasons.
[[
var uri = ...
var
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
That looks _really_ complicated.
By many measures, your CORS based solution is more complicated.
The measure I care
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 Dec 2009, at 17:26, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I couldn't find any mentioning to the liquidness of the new HTML element
widget. What happens if one does not configure any height or width to it?
In terms of width, I assume it behaves like a div and takes the entire
container width, but what happens with height?
Does it behave like a
Today, the WebGL WG at Khronos [1] released a public draft of the WebGL
specification [2], and we really welcome (and need) wide review. Along
with Mozilla folks, the WebGL WG has representatives from Opera, Google,
and Apple, and nightly builds of Firefox, Chromium, and Safari have
support
21 matches
Mail list logo
