On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:36:28 +0200, Chris Wilson cwi...@microsoft.com
wrote:
See, this is exactly why we asked the question - because it seems that
behavior is inconsistent, we're not sure what the expectation is. The
fact that the XHR spec says the events do not bubble (but says nothing
github rules!
Below is the draft agenda for the July 1 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:
XHR2 related discussion happens in WebApps WG.
Forwarding...
Original Message
Subject: [whatwg] what happened to sendAsBinary?
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:27:09 +0300
From: Toni Ruottu toni.ruo...@iki.fi
To: wha...@whatwg.org
hello
We are trying to code an application that
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:48:47 +0200, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
XHR2 related discussion happens in WebApps WG.
Forwarding...
Original Message
Subject: [whatwg] what happened to sendAsBinary?
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:27:09 +0300
From: Toni Ruottu
I've evaluated the discussions in this thread and am strongly leaning
towards proposing we drop openURL() from the specification on privacy
and security grounds.
Although I can think of cases where it might be useful to have a
widget programmatically call openURL (e.g., when it's 5pm, and if I'm
On 30 Jun 2010, at 14:30, Marcos Caceres wrote:
I've evaluated the discussions in this thread and am strongly leaning
towards proposing we drop openURL() from the specification on privacy
and security grounds.
Although I can think of cases where it might be useful to have a
widget
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hey all,
I think that IDBEvent needs to inherit from Event [1] in order for us to
properly inherit from EventTarget in IDBRequest. Specifically,
Dear all,
Please note that the OMTP BONDI 1.11 errata release specifications are
available at: http://bondi.omtp.org/1.11/ . These contain minor changes
and editorial updates to the previously released 1.1 version:
http://bondi.omtp.org/1.1/ .
Thanks,
David.
David Rogers
OMTP
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10056
Summary: IDBEvent should inherit from DOM Level 3 Event
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/#interface-Eve
On 6/30/2010 8:25 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Agreed. In WebKit, Jeremy already made it inherit from Event.
I filed bug 10056 [1] on this.
Cheers,
Shawn
[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10056
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
Following up on discussions mainly at [1] and use cases at [2], I'd
like to propose splitting the BlobWriter [née FileWriter] class, with
an eye to solving some UI problems and simplifying implementation.
When saving a Blob
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
Following up on discussions mainly at [1] and use cases at [2], I'd
like to propose splitting the BlobWriter [née FileWriter] class, with
an eye to
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
Following up on discussions mainly at [1] and use cases at [2], I'd
like to
Earlier today the W3C posted a Draft charter for a new Web Notification
Working Group:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/notification-charter
The primary objective of this WG is to move the Web Notifications spec
to Recommendation:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/
If you
On 6/29/10 2:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
See, this is exactly why we asked the question - because it seems that behavior
is inconsistent, we're not sure what the expectation is.
Note that the Firefox behavior I described is irrelevant to
specification efforts, because it's not visible to web
We've some more questions regarding the blob URL.
1. The spec does not describe how blob and blob URL will work in the worker
and shared worker scenarios. I think we should allow WorkerGlobalScope to be
the binding context for the blob URL, like Document. In addition, we should
define how a blob
Thanks for the update. We've some more questions regarding the blob URL.
1. The spec does not describe how blob and blob URL will work in the worker
and shared worker scenarios. I think we should allow WorkerGlobalScope to be
the binding context for the blob URL, like Document. In addition, we
Hi All,
Currently the IndexedDB specification is silent on what should happen
if IDBObjectStore.add, IDBObjectStore.put, IDBObjectStore.remove,
IDBCursor.update or IDBCursor.remove() is called from a READ_ONLY
transaction. There are two possible ways we can handle this:
1. We can throw an
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
Currently the IndexedDB specification is silent on what should happen
if IDBObjectStore.add, IDBObjectStore.put, IDBObjectStore.remove,
IDBCursor.update or IDBCursor.remove() is called from a READ_ONLY
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
Currently the IndexedDB specification is silent on what should happen
if IDBObjectStore.add, IDBObjectStore.put, IDBObjectStore.remove,
Hi All,
This was one issue we ran into while implementing IndexedDB. In the
code examples I'll use the mozilla proposed asynchronous APIs, but the
issue applies equally to the spec as it is now, as well as the
synchronous APIs.
Consider an objectStore containing the following objects:
{ id: 1,
On 6/29/10 2:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
See, this is exactly why we asked the question - because it seems
that behavior is inconsistent, we're not sure what the expectation is.
Note that the Firefox behavior I described is irrelevant to
specification efforts, because it's not visible to web
Dear WebApps WG,
In this message I state my LC comments on the following documents:
[a] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/
[b] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/
[c] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-workers-20091222/
Some comments on particular drafts apply to those
I've thought about this more and have some additional doubts inline.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
This was one issue we ran into while implementing IndexedDB. In the
code examples I'll use the mozilla proposed asynchronous APIs, but the
issue applies equally to the spec as it is now, as well as the
26 matches
Mail list logo
