The main requirement for a webapp (or a website) to use App Cache,
is AJAX capability.
Without AJAX, the webapp is just like offline STATIC application
(which is boring).
So, in order to use App Cache, developers must re-design their
websites so that it is AJAX enabled (which requires too much
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
3. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Approval - how to start a test case
review, approval process, how to update an approved test case
It looks like every submitted test suite must undergo a CfC, and so
must every
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hear.
I am starting to think that Mozilla will step up and provide an embedding
of SQLite, even if it has to only think of it as such. It will have to.
People would rather use a working database than something
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
No, it actually sounds like a success; it prevented a specification being
created which would have been tied to a particular implementation, no matter
how widely-deployed.
For comparison, IE6 was very widely deployed
Yes I agree, as has been said before on this list, that comments are
always welcome and let's all please make sure those comments are
consistent with the principles to which I referred.
-Art Barstow
On Apr/1/2011 12:21 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Arthur
On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote:
Are there any browser vendor representatives on the mailing list who would
care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to Keean's
RelationalDBhttps://github.com/keean/RelationalDB idea? What would need
to be in place to start work
On 4/1/2011 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
IE6 is closed-source software written for a single platform. SQLite
is in the public domain, works for all major operating systems and
lots of minor ones, and is already used (I think?) by every major
browser except IE. That makes all the difference.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
No, it actually sounds like a success; it prevented a specification being
created which would have been tied to a particular implementation, no
On Apr/1/2011 3:39 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote:
If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't
show up in a spec as simply do what SQLite does, but as a complete
spec of SQLite's behavior.
FYI, the Web SQL Database NOTE says:
[[
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Lastly, some vendors have expressed unwillingness to embed SQLite for
legal reasons. Embedding other peoples code definitely exposes you to
risk of copyright and patent lawsuits. While I can't say that I fully
agree with this
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Creating such a spec would be a formidable task, of course.
Indeed. One that the SQL community has failed in doing so far. And
they have a lot more experience with SQL than we do.
That suggests a very different rationale
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12321
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hi Art,
Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
public-html list and honestly don't have a good understanding of which list
is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
to harmonize with other topics discussed on the public-webapps
Michael Nordman wrote:
Hi Art,
Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
public-html list and honestly don't have a good understanding of which list
is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
to harmonize with other topics
Hi,
Presently, the IDL in Selectors API defines the NodeSelector
interface using [Supplemental, NoInterfaceObject].
I'm not quite sure why I have supplemental in there, but it seems to be
left over from an old edit that should have been removed, since
NodeSelector is not a pre-existing
Hi Shawn
I would be interested in this. What would need to be done to make this a
Firefox plugin? I've done XPCOM stuff before in xulrunner if that's any
help.
Cheers,
Keean
On Apr 1, 2011 6:09 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote:
Are there
On 4/1/11 4:51 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
[Supplemental]
interface Element {
Element querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional any
...
}
This adds another method to Element.prototype
[NoInterfaceObject]
interface NodeSelector {
Element querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Apr/1/2011 3:39 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote:
If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't show
up in a spec as simply do what SQLite does, but as a complete spec of
SQLite's behavior.
FYI, the Web SQL Database NOTE
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
First of all, what should we do once the SQLite team releases a new
version which has some modifications in its SQL dialect? We generally
always need to embed the latest
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I don't find this compelling, because it assumes that the release
methodology of SQLite is fixed in stone.
It would be incredibly rude of us to force an independent team of
developers to change development practices for our
Lachlan Hunt:
[Supplemental]
interface Element {
Element querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional any
...
}
This adds another method to Element.prototype
[NoInterfaceObject]
interface NodeSelector {
Element querySelector(in DOMString selectors, in optional any
...
};
On Friday, April 1, 2011, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I don't find this compelling, because it assumes that the release
methodology of SQLite is fixed in stone.
It would be incredibly rude of us to force an
22 matches
Mail list logo
