http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13083
Summary: postMessage should have an optional parameter for a
synchronous request. Cross-domain AJAX calls are
enough of a problem that it merits a supported way of
fixing it,
Kris, Sean - in case you were including the W3C re appropriate next
step to advance this proposal, please note the W3C's new Community
Groups and Business Groups proposal has now advanced to the Beta stage:
W3C Community Groups and Business Groups
http://www.w3.org/2010/12/community/
Beta
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:17:38 +0200, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Bruce Lawson was dropping a big hint the other day to look again
at the questions Mike posed a long while ago! I know there was
discussion at the time, but I think both initiatives have moved on
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:17:38 +0200, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Bruce Lawson was dropping a big hint the other day to look again
at the questions Mike posed a long while ago! I know
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
This new proposal solves both these by making all the modifications
first, then firing all the events. Hence the implementation can
separate implementing the mutating function from the code that sends
out notifications.
Widget'eers,
To help me track the status of the widget specs that are nearing
Proposed Recommendation (PR), I created the following document using the
PR transition request template:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsPR
This data indicates only the PC spec is currently ready for
Richard, Marcos - what is the plan to get Widget Updates spec LC ready
(see [1] for LC requirements)?
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
All - if you have any implementation data for this spec, please let us know.
-Thanks, AB
[1]
Robin - what is the status and plan for the Widget URI spec?
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/
All - if you have any implementation data for this spec, please let us know.
-Thanks, AB
I didn't notice this thread and I filed [1] in webkit due to this behavior.
Providing an automatic filename it's better than sending an empty one, but
it fails to address interaction with existing systems (some might refuse the
upload if it doesn't look like a correct file type, at the very least
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't notice this thread and I filed [1] in webkit due to this behavior.
Providing an automatic filename it's better than sending an empty one, but it
fails to address interaction with existing systems (some
2011/6/29 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't notice this thread and I filed [1] in webkit due to this
behavior.
Providing an automatic filename it's better than sending an empty one,
but it fails to
Marcos
It also occurred to me that we should have a link to the Best Practices
document from XML Signature, so people are aware of it.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion. We will follow up on this in the XML
Security WG.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jun 28, 2011, at 6:16
Hi Folks!
With use cases (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases)
firmed up, and isolation
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0900.html),
inheritance
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0941.html)
out of the way, a component
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:43:13 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
Providing an automatic filename it's better than sending an empty one,
but it fails to address interaction with existing systems (some might
refuse the upload if it doesn't look like a correct file
2011/6/29 Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:43:13 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
Providing an automatic filename it's better than sending an empty one, but
it fails to address interaction with existing systems (some might refuse the
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:39 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
If a png screenshot (as provided by current Chrome in the paste event) is
sent to the server and saved as blob.bin or blob.blob, I doubt that
it will be sent back to the client with the correct mime
2011/6/29 Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:39 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
If a png screenshot (as provided by current Chrome in the paste event) is
sent to the server and saved as blob.bin or blob.blob, I doubt that it
will be
On 6/29/11 12:08 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
2) There is no separation between internal
(http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/#xblimplementation) and external objects,
since we decided to push isolation into its own spec.
I still think this is a mistake that will come back and bite as as we
try to bolt
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:58 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
My first simple approach was:
formdata.append(elementName, blob, picture.png);
Jonas has suggested instead
blobbuilder.getFile(picture.png)
I don't mind one way or another, or something else you think
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/29/11 12:08 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
2) There is no separation between internal
(http://dev.w3.org/2006/xbl2/#xblimplementation) and external objects,
since we decided to push isolation into its own spec.
I still
On 6/29/11 12:59 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
It will just return null when the membrane is in place.
OK. And the encapsulation will prevent other ways of getting at the
shadow tree?
Ah yes -- I didn't know how to express this in IDL. The Node comes to
Document by way of TreeScope.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/29/11 12:59 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
It will just return null when the membrane is in place.
OK. And the encapsulation will prevent other ways of getting at the shadow
tree?
Yes! element.shadow is the only way
+cam, in case his mail filters are haters.
:DG
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/29/11 12:59 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
It will just return null when the membrane is in
2011/6/29 Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:58 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo
aml...@gmail.com wrote:
My first simple approach was:
formdata.append(elementName, blob, picture.png);
Jonas has suggested instead
blobbuilder.getFile(picture.png)
I don't
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:17:01 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov
dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
The former:
http://codesearch.google.com/codesearch#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/third_party/WebKit/Source/WebCore/dom/Document.hl=208
How can Document inherit from TreeScope if it already inherits from Node?
--
Anne van
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:17:01 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org
wrote:
The former:
http://codesearch.google.com/codesearch#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/third_party/WebKit/Source/WebCore/dom/Document.hl=208
How can
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
This new proposal solves both these by making all the modifications
first, then firing all the events. Hence the implementation can
separate
Anne van Kesteren:
How can Document inherit from TreeScope if it already inherits from Node?
Dimitri Glazkov:
TreeScope is a Node.
That doesn’t work now that Web IDL allows only single inheritance.
Here is how I would write the IDL, if I understand what you want
correctly:
// augment
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
This new proposal solves both these by making all the modifications
first, then firing all the events. Hence the implementation can
separate
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Jokes aside. I think the way to do this is that the spec should
introduce the concept of a compound mutating function. Functions
like insertBefore, removeChild and the innerHTML setter should claim
to be such functions.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8241
Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
I am not a fan of this API because I don't think it provides sufficient
encapsulation. The words encapsulation and isolation have been used in
different ways in this discussion, so I will start with an outline of different
possible senses of encapsulation that could apply here.
== Different
32 matches
Mail list logo
