Hi Pierre,
On 21/03/10 10:15 PM, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette wrote:
Thank you Marcos for your feedback. You are correct; I did not make it
clear that the calls to getImageData and toDataURL should raise the
standard exception that occurs when attempting to access data of a
tainted canvas. I've
On 3/22/2010 10:05 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I also can't seem to figure out what the success event is supposed to be
for just about anything. Am I just missing something, or is this not yet
specified?
When onsuccess fires, you can then start the next request.
Sorry, I guess I'm not being
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I think the span and dir models work well. I've implemented the new
algorithms in Wookie for License, Name, Author and Description, and they seem
to work nicely[1]. I'll add the same functionality to
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 3/22/2010 10:05 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I also can't seem to figure out what the success event is supposed to be
for just about anything. Am I just missing something, or is this not yet
specified?
When onsuccess
What about using a filename that is unique with repect to files sent in that
FormData (but it is up to the UA)? For example, a UA may choose to do Blob1,
Blob2, etc. For the content-type, application/octet-string seems most
fitting.
Here's the result applied to your example:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Richard, Addison, Felix, All,
Based on my conversations with Marcos and reading this thread, it is my
understanding that you support:
a) the new span element and dir attribute model Marcos added to the Widget
PC
To be safe, probably UA can choose to create the unique name from the GUID,
like blob-5597cb2e-74fb-479a-81e8-10679c523118.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote:
What about using a filename that is unique with repect to files sent in
that FormData (but it is up
To be even safer, I'd remove dashes from it... I never knew why GUIDs have
those dashes - to make them easier to memorize? :-)
Seriously though, it would be nice to have XHR2 spec to have these details
spelled out, especially mime type (I think David meant
application/octet-stream)
Dmitry
On
After the extensive discussion several weeks ago, I've been working on a new
draft for Web Notifications which is now available at
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
The most substantial changes are:
- Add requirements section. This is derived from the wiki page which Doug
The following items are not listed as new in the draft charter,
although they do not appear in the previous charter and are not an
obvious continuation of a previous charter spec:
Indexed Database API
Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving
Uniform Messaging Policy
Selectors API Level 2
While reviewing the new Web Apps WG charter, I noticed that the
current (2008) charter does not list this deliverable. It also says:
The WebApps WG will not take on new Recommendation-Track Widgets
deliverables without new charter review.
Could someone point me to the justification for
On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Maciej-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 3/22/10 10:36 PM):
The following items are not listed as new in the draft charter,
although they do not appear in the previous charter and are not an
obvious continuation of a previous charter spec:
12 matches
Mail list logo
