On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
Third, is the order of attributes significant for XML namespace
declarations? eg does this:
x xmlns:foo=… foo:bar=… /
mean the same thing as
x foo:bar=… xmlns:foo=… /
? If not, including namespaces in the attribute
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney domin...@google.com wrote:
Third, is the order of attributes significant for XML namespace
declarations? eg does this:
x xmlns:foo=… foo:bar=… /
mean the same thing as
x
On 8/6/11, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
[...]
I've stated in prior threads, that unless the word is aria-* or data-*,
properties are set on the element.
I see. But that's inherently inconsistent and mostly misleading
(attr alludes to attribute not usually property except when it's
On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooneydomin...@google.com wrote:
Third, is the order of attributes significant for XML namespace
declarations? eg does this:
x
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooneydomin...@google.com
wrote:
Third, is the order
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/5/2011 9:23 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as
to which spec they cite regardless of the reason.
And one of the role of the W3C staff is to ensure
On 2011-08-08 11:34, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
First off, that's infinitely more work to support a rarely used
feature than not supporting it at all.
Second, since that notation isn't used anywhere else, it's a pretty
big cost in brain print for users.
So no, I wouldn't say it's cheap.
...
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is there a reason to support namespaced attributes at all? They are
extremely rare, especially on the web.
Ideally I'd like to deprecate them, but I suspect that's not doable.
But I see no reason to support them in new
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Is there a reason to support namespaced attributes at all? They are
extremely rare, especially on the web.
Ideally I'd like to deprecate them, but I
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13232
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13255
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Sorry about the very slow response; I've been on leave, and am now
catching up on my email.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
Greetings Adam,
Ian, I wish I knew that earlier when I originally posted the idea,
there was lots of discussion and good ideas
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13373
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13426
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13526
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13580
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13525
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13295
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13686
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13525
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NEEDSINFO |FIXED
--- Comment
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13322
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13588
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
It's actually confidential company data, I was thinking off. Together with the
DOMCrypt API I thought this could be a valid use case. But I think there might
be more cases in which it might make sense to preprocess locally stored video
data.
Kind regards,
Simon Heckmann
Am 08.08.2011 um
Sorry to jump in the middle of your discussion but after reading Eric's
questions e.g.
I haven't fully absorbed the MediaStream API, but perhaps it
would be more natural to make a connector in that API rather
than modifying Blob?
I think this use case also applies
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming data.
Using .responseType=text you can read the contents of the data as
soon as it comes in, i.e. you don't have to wait for the load event
to read the data.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another solution would to make sure to always fire a progress event
for the last data before firing the load event. I personally like
this approach more. There *might* even be reasons to do that to ensure
that pages create
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming data.
...
Agreed. I proposed something similar in January, with fixed buffer lengths:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming data.
...
Agreed. I proposed something
On 8/8/2011 2:51 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Simon Heckmann si...@simonheckmann.de
mailto:si...@simonheckmann.de wrote:
Well, not directly an answer to your question, but the use case I
had in mind is the following:
A large encrypted video (e.g. HD
On 8/8/2011 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with streaming
On 8/8/11 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
To solve this I propose we add two new values to .responseType:
streaming-text and streaming-arraybuffer.
I think this would be a very useful feature. I only have naming nits:
1) What do you think of textstream instead of streaming-text?
Similarly for
31 matches
Mail list logo
