Hi Deepak,
I guess you came across some of the very common problems of XML signature
verification. Do you use a ready-made toolkit ( like Bouncy Castle ) ? I guess
you have to dig into the details of reference resolving ...
But I would propose another approach for your scenario :
I'm member of
I believe the instance of WorkerUtils is much like window in a page. I.e.
you put stuff on there that you want in the global scope. Thus I'm pretty
sure that WorkerUtils is the right place for both.
J
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:54 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Speaking of which, we use UNKNOWN_ERR for a bunch of other
internal consistency issues. Is this OK by everyone, should we use
another,
or should we create a new one? (Ideally these issues will be few and far
between
We've come across an issue with storage keys in Widget preferences; namely that
the Web Storage spec [1] states that:
Keys are strings. Any string (including the empty string) is a valid key.
Values can be any data type supported by the structured clone algorithm.
However, common guidance on
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
things like widgets.preferences.12345=xyz throw exceptions.
widgets.preferences[12345]=xyz probably works...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
We've come across an issue with storage keys in Widget preferences; namely
that the Web Storage spec [1] states that:
Keys are strings. Any string (including the empty string) is a valid key.
Values can be any
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/14/10 10:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Hm, good point. So then, no, there has to be an element in the shadow
DOM that represents an output port, which is then *replaced* with the
appropriate normal-DOM children in
On 15 Dec 2010, at 15:50, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
We've come across an issue with storage keys in Widget preferences; namely
that the Web Storage spec [1] states that:
Keys are strings. Any string (including
On 12/15/10 7:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Yes to the first two. Maybe to the last - the final flattened tree is
just what's handed to CSS as the element-tree. There aren't really
DOM nodes there, or at least it doesn't matter whether or not there
is.
OK.
(Events and such don't work on the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/15/10 7:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
(Events and such don't work on the final flattened tree
Sort of. Hit testing clearly needs to work on the layout structure
generated from the final flattened tree, so event
note that i should have said:
widgets.preferences[12345]=xyz probably works...
since other reserved words don't work well unquoted... and obviously
if your identifier includes , ', or \, you may need to quote it or
escape it appropriately...
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/15/10 7:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
(Events and such don't work on the final flattened tree
Sort of. Hit testing clearly needs to work
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/15/10 7:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
(Events and such don't
On 12/15/10 10:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Yes, output ports can be moved. I don't have any particular use-case
for it, but under the current conceptual model for how output ports
work, it's simpler to allow it than to disallow it, because output
ports are just elements.
It significantly
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/15/10 10:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Yes, output ports can be moved. I don't have any particular use-case
for it, but under the current conceptual model for how output ports
work, it's simpler to allow it than to
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/15/10 10:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Yes, output ports can be moved. I don't have any particular use-case
for it, but under the current conceptual model for how output ports
work, it's simpler to allow it than to
On 12/15/10 11:40 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
If all you're doing is moving the output port, why wouldn't all the
associated normal-DOM elements end up in the same place?
Because the new parent of the output port can have a binding attached
itself, which puts them in different output ports
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:21 AM
I believe the instance of WorkerUtils is much like window in a page. I.e.
you put stuff on there that you want in the global scope. Thus I'm
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
So that in this case there would be a span element in the shadow DOM and
a different span element in the flattened tree?
As XBL2 is specced currently, the nodes in the explicit DOM and in the
shadow DOM are the same nodes as in the final flattened
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
So that in this case there would be a span element in the shadow DOM and
a different span element in the flattened tree?
As XBL2 is specced currently, the nodes in the explicit DOM and
Regular transactions take a timeout parameter when started, which ensures that
we eventually make progress one way or the other if there's an un-cooperating
script that won't let go of an object store or something like that.
I'm not sure if we discussed this before, it seems that we need to add
On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
At least in Gecko's case, we still use XBL1 in this way, and those design
goals would apply to XBL2 from our point of view. It sounds like you have
entirely different design goals, right?
Sounds like it.
OK, so given contradictory
22 matches
Mail list logo
