The question of where you are represented and your ability to
participate cuts both ways - the same is true for us. I think if the
browser vendors want their products really to be seen as compatible
with
the Web application space (as compared to just dynamic Web pages),
they
will support the
Hi all,
thanks a lot for this useful and frank conversation. Based on this input and
stuff I've been ruminating over, I'd like to propose the following arrangement
(in detail, so bear with me for stating some parts that may be obvious).
• File/FileReader stays in WebApps. It defines all that
Hi Robin,
It might be worth hanging on for Arun's response to my email this
morning before we get to a resolution on this.
Also on the proposed naming, the term 'Trusted' has a very specific
meaning and it could create ambiguities - i.e. we would not be defining
a Trusted File System Access.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:03:05 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The Editor's Draft does not yet include CR exit criteria. I would expect
the criteria to be similar to our previous CRs i.e. require a thorough
test suite and at least two implementations that pass all tests. (We
Below is the draft agenda for the June 17 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:
On 6/16/10 6:56 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
WDYT?
Robin - your proposal seems reasonable to me.
-Art Barstow
All,
I think this touches on almost everything, including the File* topic
currently being discussed.. please, ask yourselves:
Why are why are developers building extensions to create client side
applications? Are they not still running in the browsers? why have they
been pushed outside of
SOLD to the bearded french dude!
Seriously though, this sounds great.
/ Jonas
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi all,
thanks a lot for this useful and frank conversation. Based on this input and
stuff I've been ruminating over, I'd like to propose the
On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode does not
exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you know that the record exists
and hence don't need to specify that option.
To be clear, you are saying that there are only
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode does
not exist in practice. If you must overwrite,
I don't have an opinion about addOrModify but in the Firefox build I'm
messing with the cursor has an update method that I find highly useful
and efficient.
-Mikeal
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta
When you get to the cursor, the object already existed. This is the case where
the update occurs on an existing object and put means put because it already
exists.
On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
I don't have an opinion about addOrModify but in the Firefox build I'm
Hi David,
Thanks for your questions.
On 6/16/10 2:16 AM, David Rogers wrote:
The question of where you are represented and your ability to
participate cuts both ways - the same is true for us. I think if the
browser vendors want their products really to be seen as compatible
with
Hi Arun,
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com]
Sent: 16 June 2010 19:48
On 6/16/10 2:16 AM, David Rogers wrote:
The question of where you are represented and your ability to
participate cuts both ways - the same is true for us. I think if the
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius
svartma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/10, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
... I [had been earlier] persuaded that the device element is
unnecessary, given recent announcements for the input type=file
accept=...;source=... type
On 6/16/10 12:59 PM, David Rogers wrote:
[DAVID] I was actually referring to:
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/privacy-reqs/
(As mentioned in previous correspondence, I think securing an API and
privacy can be decoupled, but both are very relevant topics).
I've read that document and think that
I am also happy with this suggested approach.
- Maciej
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
SOLD to the bearded french dude!
Seriously though, this sounds great.
/ Jonas
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi all,
thanks a lot for this
Sorry about the delay in response; I've been out of the office for the
past 10 days. [Also, sorry Bryan--I forgot to reply-all.]
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
I am not meaning to be unfair, perhaps the message is not coming through
clearly
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9768
Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9563
Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9769
Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
21 matches
Mail list logo
