On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
concerns should
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Andres Riofrio riofr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
If data appears both in the .ports array and the .data property, then
people will be tempted to create protocols which only work if the array
buffer is transferred, i.e. if the receiver only looks in .ports. I.e.
people will likely end up with
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
If data appears both in the .ports array and the .data property, then
people will be tempted to create protocols which only work if the array
buffer is transferred, i.e. if the
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Nathan Kitchen w...@nathankitchen.com wrote:
Hi.
I'm not sure if this is the place to raise this, it's basically a request
for consideration of an API which I don't believe exists and would probably
be most useful within web apps: a UUID generator.
Earlier
Hi Cam - thanks very much for this update and the good progress!
All - please help Cam come to closure on the bugs listed below.
Cam mentioned off-list that closing these bugs by June 30 should be
doable so let's please work toward that deadline.
If any new bugs are raised between now and
On 6/21/11 2:00 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
concerns should affect web-exposed APIs in general
your claims seem pretty groundless
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/21/11 2:00 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
concerns should
On 6/21/11 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Seems your idea of the web platform is very idiosyncratic and
limited. It almost sounds like you are advocating a modern web
browser with no extensions installed is the Web platform or it's not
in the HTML/WAHTWG spec, so it's not the Web platform. Yet,
On Sat, 14 May 2011 00:17:55 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yeah, I think we can get away with this.
The one case where it seems that Gecko and the spec differentiate for
the readystatechange event is that gecko dispatches readystatechange
when going to the DONE state even if the
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/21/11 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Seems your idea of the web platform is very idiosyncratic and
limited. It almost sounds like you are advocating a modern web
browser with no extensions installed is the Web
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:54:28 +0100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
I think timeout is a bit too limiting. Especially the step
2. If the send() flag is true raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR exception and
terminate these steps.
Setting timeout no longer throws and invoking open() no
Le 21 juin 2011 à 10:33, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
That doesn't mean we should be designing web APIs around the needs of
extensions. In particular, extensions can, and often do, have access to APIs
that are not exposed to web pages and that can be used to serve whatever
non-Web needs those
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:46:08 +0200, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/19/11 8:51 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Could we at least limit overrideMimeType calls to only be allowed when
setting .responseType is allowed?
I think this would make the most sense, personally.
Done.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:40:23 +0100, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
I suggest requiring that a progress event be fired when loaded ==
total, regardless of the 50ms interval timer. WebKit appears to
already do this in all cases: xhr.onprogress is always sent before
readyState is changed to
Hey Maciej, Kenneth, opinions? (Or know anyone who does.)
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:43:11 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/ section 3.6.9 near the end says:
If the request entity body has been successfully uploaded and the
upload complete
On 6/7/11 5:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jian Lijia...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Sickingjo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jian Lijia...@chromium.org wrote:
I have a couple questions regarding abort
On 6/7/11 1:43 PM, Jian Li wrote:
I have a couple questions regarding abort behavior.
* If the reading is completed and the loadend event has been
fired, do we want to fire loadend event again when abort()
method is called?
Right now, if reading is completed (with loadend
Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker:
FileError [1] and FileException [2] both define a DOMString attribute
called name that contains the name of the error/exception constant as
a string. Since this is not a useful human readable error message,
and developers should be encouraged to
Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 08:55 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so it
would be good to publish a new Working Draft in w3.org/TR/.
Since Tracker shows 0 bugs for the spec [Tracker] and the ED does not
appear to identify any open
On 6/21/11 11:26 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
I agree that the focus should be the Web, but if other things benefit
from the security and design decisions, all the better, no?
Sure. I just don't think we should be doing things that are targeted
only at non-web situations.
The above still
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/webapps/20110621
On Jun/21/2011 12:54 PM, ext Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Hi Arun, Jonas, All,
The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so it
would be good to publish a new Working Draft in w3.org/TR/.
Since Tracker shows 0 bugs for the spec [Tracker
Hmm... this is curious. I'm not sure that the Chrome behavior is
intentional. I need
to investigate further.
Isn't there already a signal to tell you when response headers are
available? Isn't it a
bit redundant for the upload complete notification to be tied to the same
signal?
To support
On 6/21/11 3:01 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
Isn't there already a signal to tell you when response headers are
available?
Yes; I believe the readystate changes at this point and
onreadystatechange is fired.
Isn't it a bit redundant for the upload complete notification to be tied to the
same
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
I think we would also want to dispatch it just before timeout, error, and
abort, no? HTML and the File API would probably also be affected by this
somehow. File API being modeled after XMLHttpRequest, and XMLHttpRequest
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12067
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12340
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12836
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Could one of the IndexDB people help me convert this example to use the
IndexDB stuff instead of the WebSQL stuff?
http://www.whatwg.org/demos/workers/database-updater/worker.js
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12912
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NEEDSINFO |FIXED
--
Configure
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Olli Pettay olli.pet...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12913
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12916
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12980
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12917
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12917
Adrian Bateman [MSFT] adria...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12917
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
If data appears both in the .ports array and the .data property, then
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Could one of the IndexDB people help me convert this example to use the
IndexDB stuff instead of the WebSQL stuff?
http://www.whatwg.org/demos/workers/database-updater/worker.js
Assuming the 'key' is intended to be a unique
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12574
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
support transfer? Ian said that it would throw, but I'm not sure that's
best.
Suppose Firefox N supports transferring ArrayBuffer, and Firefox N+1 adds
support for transferring ImageData. Developers working with Firefox N+1
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
support transfer? Ian said that it would throw, but I'm not sure that's
best.
If it doesn't throw, doesn't that introduce the backwards compat issue
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
support transfer? Ian said that it would throw, but I'm not sure that's
best.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 AM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
What happens if an object is included in the second list that doesn't
support
48 matches
Mail list logo
