Dear all,
I've been informed by the ISO secretariat that the liaison from MPEG was sent
to the W3C and that the right persons this time have received it. Is it
correct? Can you tell me what the next step is ? Has the group discussed it ?
What is the opinion of the group ? If not, when will it
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Maciej
Hi Doug,
Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Marcos-
Marcos Caceres wrote (on 2/2/10 7:29 AM):
I had a discussion with an implementer who was a bit confused about the
concept of null in the specification. The problem is that I kinda
wrote the spec as if it was to be implemented in Java or JavaScript.
ISSUE-114 (CORS-credentials): CORS does not define the effect of the
credentials flag in sufficient detail [CORS]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/114
Raised by: Maciej Stachowiak
On product: CORS
It looks like the only actual statement about the effect of the credentials
flag is:
ISSUE-115 (xhr-referer): XHR does not specify what URL to use for Referer [XHR]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/115
Raised by: Maciej Stachowiak
On product: XHR
XHR does not specify what URL to use for Referer. HTML5 specifies this in the
Resource Fetch algorithm, but XHR does not
I raised ISSUE-114 http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/114 so this
issue does not get lost.
On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
First off, note that we are talking about *user* credentials here.
This is why Origin is not included. Origin is a website credential,
not a
Below is the draft agenda for the 4 February Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
Is there anyone from Mozilla on this mailing list? I'd like to get their
opinion on these matters.
2010/2/1 Pierre-Antoine LaFayette pierre.lafaye...@gmail.com
So it seems like there is a general consensus that at least some parts of
the icon URI scheme are useful and are worth standardizing.
Hi Art,
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos, All - below is a list of headers for comments submitted to
public-webapps re the PC spec and test suite after CR#2 was published on
1-Dec-2009. I think the list is complete but I haven't double-checked
Marcos, Art,
Please could you point us in the direction of the documentation from W3C on
progressing to PR? Is there some kind of formal gate to progression?
Thanks,
David.
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:30 AM, ext David Rogers wrote:
Please could you point us in the direction of the documentation
from W3C on progressing to PR? Is there some kind of formal gate to
progression?
See the PD:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr
-Art Barstow
Thanks Art,
Marcos, although I don't disagree on the quality point, I just want to check
how this fits in with the formal process. Where did 100,000 users come from?
Apologies for being new to this part of the process but it talks about:
Proposed Recommendation (PR)
A Proposed
On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:48 AM, ext David Rogers wrote:
Are there formal points (e.g. 100,000 users etc.) at which this is
gated? I'm assuming that some organisations would wait until it
reached PR before implementing so your proposal could be somewhat
chicken and egg related.
Each CR
Thanks for that Art, I agree with you, that would also be the OMTP view.
Cheers,
David.
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: 03 February 2010 15:55
To: Marcos Caceres; David Rogers
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] PC: comments submitted
Hi David, Art,
David Rogers wrote:
Thanks for that Art, I agree with you, that would also be the OMTP view.
Don't get me wrong: that's why I said I'd personally like to see and
not It is Opera's position that...; and made tried to make it clear
that if other implementers feel confident that
Hi all,
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link was mentioned
in an email to @whatwg mailing list :/ )
NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need
a separate interface for this?
I'd rather
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I think the credentials flag should specifically affect cookies, http
authentication, and client-side SSL certs, but not proxy authentication (or,
obviously, Origin). Anne, can you fix this?
Perhaps the best way to fix
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing that might be worth noting is that if the UA contains a
HTTP cache (which most popular UAs do), the UA must never use a cached
response that was the result of a request that was made with
credentials, when
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
Hi all,
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link was mentioned
in an email to @whatwg mailing list :/ )
Hi Olli,
I
Following up on breaking out createHTMLNotification() and
createNotification() vs combining them into one large API - I believe the
intent is that a given user agent may not support all types of notifications
(for example, a mobile phone application may only support text + icon
notifications, not
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
Hi all,
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link
On 2/3/10 8:33 PM, John Gregg wrote:
I will make this more specific in the draft: create[HTML]Notification
should not load the necessary resources until it is about to be
displayed (in case of a queue). Once it is at the top of the queue, it
should:
- load its resources as if opening a new
On 2/3/10 8:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Agreed. Having a shared worker that doesn't need to worry about races
with shutting down windows seems like a big win.
Olli, do you foresee any problems with allowing access from workers?
In a multiscreen environment worker can't define which screen to
I will make this more specific in the draft: create[HTML]Notification
should not load the necessary resources until it is about to be
displayed (in case of a queue). Once it is at the top of the queue, it
should:
- load its resources as if opening a new window
- dispatch the display event
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 2/3/10 8:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Agreed. Having a shared worker that doesn't need to worry about races
with shutting down windows seems like a big win.
Olli, do you foresee any problems with allowing access
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 2/3/10 8:33 PM, John Gregg wrote:
I will make this more specific in the draft: create[HTML]Notification
should not load the necessary resources until it is about to be
displayed (in case of a queue). Once it is at
That's true in general about any UI the worker may display (HTTP Auth,
Certificate errors, etc) - the UA generally picks a parent document on
behalf of the worker and displays the UI on the associated screen.
If the client cares about which screen specifically it's displaying on
(because it has
You've been getting a lot of feedback from Mozilla. Jonas Sicking,
Robert O'Callahan, and Boris Zbarsky are all leading members of the
Mozilla community.
Adam
2010/2/3 Pierre-Antoine LaFayette pierre.lafaye...@gmail.com:
Is there anyone from Mozilla on this mailing list? I'd like to get their
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's worth noting that Adam Barth's review of UMP went into
significant detail on the definition of credentials, but I don't
recall him raising similar points about CORS, though they would
obviously apply. I take
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing that might be worth noting is that if the UA contains a
HTTP cache (which most popular UAs do), the UA must never use a cached
response
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need
a separate interface for this?
I'd rather added createNotification to window object,
or to .screen.
Shouldn't it be on navigator? We use navigator for other
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:54:44 +0100, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
Following up on breaking out createHTMLNotification() and
createNotification() vs combining them into one large API - I believe the
intent is that a given user agent may not support all types of
notifications
(for
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need
a separate interface for this?
I'd rather added createNotification to window object,
I'm not entirely certain I understand this suggestion - is this just a
change to the spec language, or does it impact the actual API (i.e. would
webapps still do the following):
if ('createHTMLNotifications' in window.notifications) {
...html notifications exist...
}
Or are you proposing
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:54:44 +0100, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
Following up on breaking out createHTMLNotification() and
createNotification() vs combining them into one large API - I believe the
intent is
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:04:06 +0100, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
If that is the idea createHTMLNotification() should be on a separate
supplemental interface that user agents on platforms that support HTML
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing that might be worth noting is that if the UA contains a
HTTP
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:52:18 +0100, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay
olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need
a
Hi All,
Zhiheng's email resulted in some good discussion.
Is Web Timing ready for standardization? If so, what's the best home
for it: WebApps, somewhere else?
-Art Barstow
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Zhiheng Wang zhihe...@google.com
Date: January 27, 2010 2:39:20 AM EST
To:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link was mentioned
in an email to @whatwg mailing list :/ )
Some other thoughts
Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing that might be worth noting is that if the UA contains a
HTTP cache (which most popular UAs do), the UA must never use a cached
response that was the result of a request that was made with
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing that might be worth noting is that if the UA contains a
HTTP cache (which most popular UAs do), the UA must never
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link
Hi, James,
Good point indeed. Some evaluation has been done here with camstudio.
Using paint event
helps in many cases but, for the reasons you mentioned, it's not yet
reliable enough. So if it's
worthwhile to do it in this spec is indeed debatable.
A related question and one that many of
Somehow Lenny's comments got lost from the list.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Lenny Rachitsky
lenny.rachit...@webmetrics.com wrote:
I’d like to jump in here and address this point:
“While I agree that timing information is important, I don't think it's
going to be so commonly used
Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing that might be worth noting is that if the UA contains a
HTTP cache (which most popular UAs do),
On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
AFAICT, RFC 2616 only does a special case for the Authorization
header, which leaves me wondering what shared caches do for other
kinds of credentials, such as cookies or the NTLM authentication that
Cookies require
Vary: Cookie
on
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
...
I don't think I've ever seen a Web server send Vary: Cookie. I don't know
offhand if they consistently send enough cache control headers to prevent caching across
users.
...
I have written some that do.
BR, Julian
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
some random comments about
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
(I didn't know that the draft existed until the link
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
We know that Vary doesn't work well in practice because of all the
bugsshortcomings in IE.
For requests with cookies, there's an interesting tension there
between wanting to support private caching in IE, but
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:40:23 +0100, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
Yes, this makes sense; I am changing the draft spec to have a
permissionLevel attribute. I think having access to the permission
level is important for the same reasons as Drew gave: the site should
know whether to
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:40:23 +0100, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
Yes, this makes sense; I am changing the draft spec to have a
permissionLevel attribute. I think having access to the permission level
is
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I think the credentials flag should specifically affect cookies, http
authentication, and client-side SSL certs, but not proxy authentication (or,
obviously, Origin). Anne,
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a Web server send Vary: Cookie. I don't know
offhand if they consistently send enough cache control headers to prevent
caching across users.
I've heard reports of proxies caching cookied
Hi Maciej and Tyler,
IMO, the important subsetting points, in priority order, are:
1) Server-side behavior compatible with UMP is automatically compatible with
CORS and with present CORS-like browser behaviors.
2) The client-side mechanisms one needs to implement UMP correctly are a
small subset
56 matches
Mail list logo
