http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10321
Summary: [IndexedDB] Description attribute of IDBDatabase
doesn't play nicely with run to completion
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10322
Summary: open() should not throw for non same-origin URL
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10323
Summary: responseXML for HTML documents
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10324
Summary: send() should set Content-Type to text/html for HTML
documents
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10325
Summary: single conformance class
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10326
Summary: make user:password in URLs a SYNTAX_ERR
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10327
Summary: supported URL schemes in open()
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10328
Summary: change Accept-Charset to should not
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
The WG has published a Candidate Recommendation draft of XMLHttpRequest
recently:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/
My apologies for not announcing this here when it happened.
As a result I worked most of last week and a bit during the weekend on a
new test suite for
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 2:34 AM
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com
wrote:
-Original
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
The WG has published a Candidate Recommendation draft of XMLHttpRequest
recently:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/
My apologies for not announcing this here when it happened.
As a result I
Hi,
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
description argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And, assuming it is optional, should the default value be
the empty string? Also, how
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:54:48 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Some of these bugs are feature enhancements. Such as adding support
for sending and receiving text/html documents. In the interest of
getting us to rec as quickly as possible I suggest that these features
are added to XHR
Marcos,
That method works for well-know URI schemes except for http:// and https://.
The openURL() method would have launched the browser for those schemes, and we
still need a method to do that.
I was not able to attend the last week's call and was not aware there was a
plan to remove the
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
description argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And,
On 8/9/2010 1:13 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
description argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And, assuming it is optional, should the
I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is actually
already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there.
When talking to Andrei earlier tonight I thought we'd probably want to make
it optional, but
Anne,
Are you saying that it should not be possible now (with XHR L1) to
receive HTML files via XHR (Receiving HTML documents would indeed be a
newish feature ) ?
This does actually work for me in XHR L1, so I'm unclear about what you
mean below.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:37:25 +0200, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
Are you saying that it should not be possible now (with XHR L1) to
receive HTML files via XHR (Receiving HTML documents would indeed be a
newish feature ) ?
This does actually work for me in XHR L1, so I'm
Quoting SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) bs3...@att.com:
Marcos,
That method works for well-know URI schemes except for http:// and
https://. The openURL() method would have launched the browser for
those schemes, and we still need a method to do that.
No. We dont. Please see my proposal.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is actually
already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there.
When talking to
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10052
Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10337
Summary: add [Supplemental] support
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Marcos,
You're saying if I understand you, that if I create an anchor:
a href=http://mywidget.com;Click to load the online version/a
That when the user clicks this link it will launch the browser, instead of
retrieving the online version of my widget (or at least of this page of it)?
This
Well at least it works in Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome.
With that broad support, I imagine that removing this defacto feature in
XHR L2 would cause a lot of heartburn for developers who probably rely
upon it today.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Anne van
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
Well at least it works in Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome.
With that broad support, I imagine that removing this defacto feature in
XHR L2 would cause a lot of heartburn for developers who probably rely
upon
Jonas,
With the code below, I have no problem doing this in Firefox. Notes:
- asyncXHR is a typical XHR wrapper function, not included here for
brevity.
- The key statement below is:
document.getElementById(text).innerHTML = Headers:br +
hdrs + br/ + xhr.responseText;
With this,
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:19:10 +0200, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
With the code below, I have no problem doing this in Firefox.
That code is not using responseXML...
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Sorry, the statement Receiving HTML documents would indeed be a newish
feature implied that it was not possible at all - if it is possible at
least using responseText (which it clearly is), and just dumping the
text into an element allows it to be accessed via the DOM, then for my
purposes it is
29 matches
Mail list logo
