For FileReader.readAsText, the spec seems to allow partial file data being
decoded and saved in the result attribute when progress event is fired:
Make progress notifications. As the bytes from the fileBlob argument are
read, user agents SHOULD ensure that on getting, the result attribute
returns
The spec says that loadend event should be dispatched before error event
when an error occurs during file read:
2. If an error occurs during file read, set readyState to DONE and set
result to null. Proceed to the error steps below.
1. Dispatch a progress event called loadend.
2. Dispatch
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
Actually, the other proposal is to provide an XHR-like API that
would use CORS forcing a unique origin as an input parameter -
there is no need to
My hope is that this would be semanti
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Actually, the other proposal is to provide an XHR-like API that would use
> CORS forcing a unique origin as an input parameter - there is no need to
> My hope is that this would be semantically equivalent to using UMP.
This unique origin
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
Reading between the lines, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, I
suspect what you're really saying is that you don't want two specs to
exist and you feel committed to CORS.
I'm saying the latter, but not the former. So long as UMP is a subse
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Re the relationship between CORS and UMP, I believe the last thread
on that
subject was the following exchange between Mark and Maceij on
February 3:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Tyler - do any of these CORS issues apply to UMP?
>>>
>>> Reduce the length of the header names?
>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/89
UMP uses one header: "Access-Control-Allow-Origin". The FPWD suggested
a new, shorter name
Thanks Frederick!
All - we plan to publish this LCWD on April 15 so if you have any
comments, please send them as soon as possible:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
-Art Barstow
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
I have updated the "Digital
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/7/2010 9:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>>
>>
Are there any
vendors considering dropping support for CORS in favor of just
supporting
UMP?
>>
>> This question is quite
I have updated the "Digital Signatures for Widgets" editors draft
(note title change agreed earlier) .
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
The changes made were noted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0028.html
and agreed to on today's teleconference [1]
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Re the relationship between CORS and UMP, I believe the last thread on that
>> subject was the following exchange between Mark and Maceij on February 3:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archive
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> We also have the Comparison of CORS and UMP document:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Comparison_of_CORS_and_UM
>
> If we are going to continue with two separate specs, I think it is important
> re expectations from Members and the Publ
The draft minutes from the April 8 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before April 15 (the next
W
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Re the relationship between CORS and UMP, I believe the last thread on that
> subject was the following exchange between Mark and Maceij on February 3:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0462.html
>
> (Neither
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> To me personally, it only really makes sense for UMP to be merged into CORS.
> Having both specs is confusing.
Given that we've created a superset-subset relationship between CORS
and UMP, we don't have divergent specs for the same functiona
Regrets for today: speaking shortly at an event.
Steven
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:05:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Below is the draft agenda for the April 8 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (a
On 8/04/10 2:40 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Here's what I can tell you about Apple's current thinking:
- We are currently shipping support CORS via XMLHttpRequest in Safari and
WebKit.
- We do not plan to drop support for CORS.
- We do not
Anne - for any of the issues you want to close, please propose a
resolution with at least a 1-week review period.
Tyler - do any of these CORS issues apply to UMP?
-Art Barstow
On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:22 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:06:55 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wr
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Here's what I can tell you about Apple's current thinking:
>
> - We are currently shipping support CORS via XMLHttpRequest in Safari and
> WebKit.
> - We do not plan to drop support for CORS.
> - We do not plan to implement UMP directly fr
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:19 PM, ext Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:12:33 +0200, Tyler Close
wrote:
I've uploaded a new draft of the Uniform Messaging Policy to:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
This version adopts the sa
20 matches
Mail list logo
