On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
Honestly, there’s something about this whole discussion that just doesn’t
feel right.
I looks like we’re trying to graft-in this new concept of transfer of
ownership into the existing postMessage semantics
(Can you please reset your font?)
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
We don’t really need to support JavaScript objects, arrays, complex
graphs, etc. at all with the new API
Strongly disagree. I should be able to transfer objects
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
tiny quick editorial request, where the spec says:
When the localStorage attribute is accessed, the user agent must run
the following steps:
Can you please change that to:
When the
Hi Rich,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Rich Tibbett rich.tibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
The current widget URI spec does not work with XHR and hence can't be
used with popular JS libraries like JQuery Mobile.
Le 9 juin 2011 à 19:09, Rich Tibbett a écrit :
Are there are any plans to undertake a Provisional (or Permanent) URI
Scheme Registration for the widget URI? [1]
Usually a scheme should be used for identifying a new protocol.
(I know that it has been used for different reasons too).
What are
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Dubost ka...@opera.com wrote:
Le 9 juin 2011 à 19:09, Rich Tibbett a écrit :
Are there are any plans to undertake a Provisional (or Permanent) URI
Scheme Registration for the widget URI? [1]
Usually a scheme should be used for identifying a new
On Jun/10/2011 6:14 AM, ext Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 10 juin 2011 à 06:10, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
What are the benefits of having a different scheme?
I'm confused... different to what?
:) http
FYI, some of that info was consolidated in:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme
On May 2, 2011, at 10:04 , Simon Heckmann wrote:
There is a new version of the proposal out:
http://www.simonheckmann.de/proposal/draft2
Somehow this whole thread ended up in the wrong place, so that I only see it
now. Your thoughts are very close to those in:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Karl Dubost ka...@opera.com wrote:
Le 10 juin 2011 à 06:10, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
What are the benefits of having a different scheme?
I'm confused... different to what?
:) http
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetURIScheme#http:_URI_Scheme
--
Adrian - this bug is for the Web Sockets API spec (and not Web Storage),
correct?
On Jun/8/2011 1:21 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12913
Summary: Close() should throw the same exception as send() for
Hi Ian,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
tiny quick editorial request, where the spec says:
When the localStorage attribute is accessed,
On Friday, June 10, 2011 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Adrian - this bug is for the Web Sockets API spec (and not Web Storage),
correct?
On Jun/8/2011 1:21 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12913
Yes - corrected now, thanks!
My take on the comments is that most commentors prefer the spec to be
changed as PLH suggested in comment #5:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111#c5
Hixie - are you willing to change the spec accordingly?
-AB
On Jun/8/2011 7:57 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
There are now 11
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
tiny quick editorial request, where the spec says:
When the localStorage attribute is accessed, the user agent must run
the following
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
I tried to create a generic HTML test for this using localStorage, but
could not figure out a way to trigger the SECURITY_ERR. I asked a few
people (Lachy, Snedders, and even the guy that implemented Web Storage
at Opera!) to help me come up with
From: Kenneth Russell [mailto:k...@google.com], Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011
11:15 PM
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
Honestly, there's something about this whole discussion that just
doesn't feel right.
I looks like we're trying to
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Kenneth Russell [mailto:k...@google.com], Sent: Thursday, June 09,
2011 11:15 PM
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
Honestly, there's something
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Travis Leithead wrote:
This looks like a mis-reading on my part of step 2 of the postMessage
algorithm:
2.If the method was called with a second argument ports and that
argument isn't null, then, if any of the entries in ports are null, if
any MessagePort object is
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, João Eiras wrote:
It seems Mozilla extended the interface WorkerUtils in their
implementation with the atob/btoa functions.
I've done the same in the spec now.
I find them quite useful in that context, and would also encourage
adding escape, unescape, encodeURI,
On Jun 10, 2011 6:56 PM, Eliot Graff eliot.gr...@microsoft.com wrote:
...
Are we saying that we should remove the TreatNullAs=EmptyString and
keep the parameter restriction that version cannot be nullable?
I think we should remove any extended attributes from the IDL and just
use
the
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, louis-rémi BABE wrote:
## Maybe Web devs don't use App Cache because they don't understand
what it is... ##
The possibility of using Webapps offline has a great potential but its
adoption by developers didn't reach our expectations. We asked Web
developers some time
Mark Pilgrim:
Wait, does this mean that setVersion(null) is the same as
setVersion(null)?
It means it’s the same as setVersion(), per the recent changes to Web
IDL which make that the default stringification of null. (To get the
opposite behaviour, you now need to specify
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Mark Pilgrim:
Wait, does this mean that setVersion(null) is the same as
setVersion(null)?
It means it’s the same as setVersion(), per the recent changes to Web
IDL which make that the default stringification of null.
May these updates:
Updated the IDBDatabase.deleteObjectStore method to return void.
For IDBDatabase.deleteObjectStore and IDBDatabase.createObjectStore added a
sentence to the description to say:
This method will synchronously modify the IDBDatabase.objectStoreNames
property.
Mark Pilgrim:
What about setVersion() with no arguments? I ask because WebKit
currently treats it like setVersion(undefined) and I'm in the
process of fixing it in about 19 places.
That’s the right behaviour.
--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
On Jun 10, 2011 8:13 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Mark Pilgrim:
What about setVersion() with no arguments? I ask because WebKit
currently treats it like setVersion(undefined) and I'm in the
process of fixing it in about 19 places.
That’s the right behaviour.
That is
26 matches
Mail list logo
