On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Hi folks,
There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
Below is the draft agenda for the July 8 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:
Hi,
During testing, Opera's QA discovered that we were missing test for the
viewmodes attribute.
Opera is contributing the following tests to the test suite:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-viewmodes/
I've added them to the test-suite file, and now appear in both
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie - since Web Messaging [1] is now in WebApps' charter, would you
please provide a short status of that spec?
Not really much to report; it's at the same stage as the rest of HTML5.
I'll have a WD ready along with all the LCs in a few weeks.
hallo Marcos (and sorry for the confusion in copying groups)
I think the clarifications below should be fine. We are using the W3C
tests but just wanted to be sure we were interpreting the test cases
in the proper way
Thanks for your help
Saludos!
---
ricardo
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM,
Ok, please let me know if you need me to clarify anything in the spec.
I'm happy to help where I can. Please also note that I checked in a
bunch of tests relating to viewmodes today.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On 7/7/10 6:39 PM, Ricardo Varela wrote:
hallo Marcos (and sorry for the confusion in
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com
wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:05:41 +0200, Charlie Reis cr...@chromium.org
wrote:
Hi all--
I'm trying to understand one of the example use cases in the CORS
specification and how the various rules about credentials apply,
This is a *reminder* for the Last Call Working Draft transition
announcement for
* API for Media Resource 1.0
* Ontology for Media Resource 1.0
The Last Call period for these documents ends on July 11, 2010.
However if you plan to send your review late, please do so ASAP. The
MAWG needs to
The Media Annotations WG asked WebApps to review two of their LCWDs by July 11.
Details below including the mail list for comments.
-Art Barstow
On 6/9/10 9:11 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
All - the Media Annotations WG asked WebApps to review two of their
LCWDs. Details below
On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
To begin with, 10052 shuts down the users of the database completely when
only one is changing its structure, i.e., adding or removing an object
store. How can we make it less draconian? Secondly, I don't see how that
approach can produce atomic changes
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Charlie Reis cr...@chromium.org wrote:
[...]
That's unfortunate-- at least for now, that prevents servers from echoing
the origin in the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header, so servers cannot host
public images that don't taint canvases. The same problem likely
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Charlie Reis cr...@chromium.org wrote:
[...]
That's unfortunate-- at least for now, that prevents servers from echoing
the origin in the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header, so servers
Because it's undesirable to prevent the browser from sending cookies on an
img request,
Why ? I can understand why you can't do it today - but why is this
undesirable even for new applications? Ad tracking ?
~devdatta
On 7 July 2010 16:11, Charlie Reis cr...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Devdatta Akhawe dev.akh...@gmail.comwrote:
Because it's undesirable to prevent the browser from sending cookies on
an
img request,
Why ? I can understand why you can't do it today - but why is this
undesirable even for new applications? Ad tracking ?
hmm, I think I quoted the wrong part of your email. I wanted to ask
why would it be undesirable to make CORS GET requests cookie-less. It
seems the argument here is reduction of implementation work. Is this
the only one? Note that even AnonXmlHttpRequest intends to make GET
requests cookie-less.
It's not just implementation effort-- as I mentioned, it's potentially a
compatibility question. If you are proposing not sending cookies on any
cross-origin images (or other potential candidates for CORS), do you have
any data about which sites that might affect?
Personally, I would love to see
On 7/7/2010 12:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
This interface allows asynchronously requesting more objectStores to
be locked. The author must take care whenever calling openObjectStores
that the request might fail due to deadlocks.
But as previously stated, I think this adds too much complexity
It's not just implementation effort-- as I mentioned, it's potentially a
compatibility question. If you are proposing not sending cookies on any
cross-origin images (or other potential candidates for CORS), do you have
any data about which sites that might affect?
Its not clear to me on how
I've posted a new draft of File API: Directories and System [1]. In
this draft I've rolled in quite a bit of feedback that I received
since first posting it on DAP--many apologies for the delay. This is
the first draft produced since we agreed to move this spec from DAP to
WebApps; I hope those
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Charlie Reis cr...@chromium.org wrote:
It's not just implementation effort-- as I mentioned, it's potentially a
compatibility question. If you are proposing not sending cookies on any
cross-origin images (or other potential candidates for CORS), do you have
any
23 matches
Mail list logo
