The HyBi WG is publishing Version 10 of the WebSockets protocol on 7/11 and
then requesting IETF Last Call. If there are remaining issues related to the
protocol, these should be immediately raised with the HyBi WG.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg07713.html
From:
Hi,
I am now a days working on analyzing the deployment of CORS in wild. By
having a crawl I have found some interesting cases. About the following
cases can we say that the sites are using CORS in wrong manner: The cases
are:
1) Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *.
In the above case I am getting in
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:09:44 +0200, Ashar Javed justas...@gmail.com
wrote:
1) Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *.
In the above case I am getting in response *. (dot after *). Is it fine
or typo?
Typo, will not work.
2) For another website I am getting in response
Access-Control: allow *
FYI, this announcement was forwarded to public-widgets-pag and there is
at least one response to that CfPA:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-widgets-pag/
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-widgets-pag/2011JulSep/0001.html
On 7/8/11 4:22 PM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:00:55 +0200, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
I was about to send a similar proposal. We'd prefer to add an optional
argument to append that specifies the filename. This is the smallest
change to
implementations and doesn't require developers to understand
Is there a deadline for protocol comments?
Based on the e-mail below, it appears the deadline is July 25. Please
clarify.
Also, for those of us not familiar with IETF process, what is the
relationship between the IETF's LC review and v10's Expires: January
12, 2012?
-Thanks, Art Barstow
Hi,
the current spec seems a bit hand-wavey on how headers should be sent when
user name and password parameters are given in the open call. It just says
send Authorization headers and handle 401 Unauthorized requests
appropriately.
Many implementations don't send the Authorize: header even
* Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
Many implementations don't send the Authorize: header even if the script
supplies user name and password, unless they have seen a 401 response.
This seems a bit counter-intuitive to authors - if they supply a user name
and a password, why isn't the browser
* Arthur Barstow wrote:
Is there a deadline for protocol comments?
Based on the e-mail below, it appears the deadline is July 25. Please
clarify.
The IESG is asking for comments by that date. There will be some time
between the date and the IESG making its decision, and there will be
some time
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
Not quite. I'm saying that there are cases where violoating the requirement
is reasonable, so test results shouldn't determine simple conformance.
On the other hand, where these are things that in *most* cases we
2011/7/11 Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com:
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:00:55 +0200, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I was about to send a similar proposal. We'd prefer to add an optional
argument to append that specifies the filename. This is the smallest change
to
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On 11 July 2011 10:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Additionally, what is the use case of being able to set the filename
during a FormData submission? My perception was that the main use case
was to not get an empty
On 11 July 2011 10:53, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
Some content management systems use the original filename by default
when storing files in document libraries. It's certainly a lesser use case
but seems like a
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future.
I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not wanting to make objects
inherit from EventTarget. :-)
It's a
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future.
I agree, indeed that's my main reason for not
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future.
I
On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
create a more complicated or
On 07/11/2011 09:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
create a more complicated or
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
On 7/11/11 8:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand,
I just updated the editor's Draft with the information from this thread (the
definitions from [1] also making keypath nullable, as Cameron pointed out).
Rewrote 3.1.12, Options Objects, to define the dictionary objects
IDBDatabaseOptionalParameters and IDBIndexOptionalParameters (removing the
getFile could work with dataTransfer for dropping files onto the desktop. There
may be other Apis which work with File but not with Blob, or not as well with
Blob.
Blob already requires linking/abstraction from createObjectUrl. Internally,
getFile could simply run createObjectUrl and treat it
2011/7/11 Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com:
On 11 July 2011 10:53, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Some content management systems use the original filename by default
when storing files in document libraries. It's
It requires more work for us. Our createObjectURL doesn't require that
abstraction. The difference here is in the ECMAScript type. In contrast,
modifying FormData append is a trivial change.
What are the other APIs where this is a problem?
Sent from my Windows Phone
FYI
--- Forwarded message ---
From: Ted Guild t...@w3.org
To: w3c-tools w3c-to...@w3.org, chairs cha...@w3.org
Cc:
Subject: Discontinuing UK and FR dial-in numbers for Zakim
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:06:43 +0200
Previously we announced our intent to discontinue the UK and FR
telephone
Problem is too strong a statement. I am all for trivial changes, part of my
advocacy for getFile is from past experiences when blob was less supported;
getFile would have helped.
FileReader has base64 encoding for binary data-- base64 encoding otherwise only
works on DOMString.
I'd like to
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12654
Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any
of the types listed in the following email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html
I addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier:
Added count() to IDBIndex, IDBIndexSync, IDBObjectStore, and
IDBObjectStoreSync. Updated the editor's draft.
Let me know if any changes are required.
Thanks,
E
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-
requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Hi all,
Jokes aside, setVersion has some issues. The problem goes something like this:
Opening a database starts simple. All you do is
var req = indexedDB.open(mydatabase);
req.onsuccess = function(e) {
doStuffWith(e.target.result);
}
However, the first thing you always need to do is to
Hmm.. The fix here is somewhat unclear. Obviously you're allowed to
call .continue multiple times if a success event fires in between.
The very first sentence in the definition for .continue reads:
If this cursor's got value flag is false, this method throws a
NOT_ALLOWED_ERR.
Was this not
32 matches
Mail list logo
