Re: Re: Indicating certificate order in XML Dig Sig ( LC-2504)

Approved! :) Thanks very much! On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:49 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:  Dear Marcos Caceres , The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 1.1 published

Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1

Le 14/08/2011 14:05, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:36:33 +0200, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@telecom-paristech.fr wrote: Le 09/08/2011 19:34, Arthur Barstow a écrit : On August 9, WebApps published LCWD #2 of the Progress Events spec:

Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:06:25 +0200, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@telecom-paristech.fr wrote: The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it should be split in two: general statement with a full

[Bug 13792] New: Remove all notes about sharing the connection. It can't work since what's received may depend on the request. It's also not reasonable to buffer every event in case they have to be

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13792 Summary: Remove all notes about sharing the connection. It can't work since what's received may depend on the request. It's also not reasonable to buffer every event in case

Re: [IndexedDB] Transaction Auto-Commit

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Shawn Wilsher m...@shawnwilsher.com wrote: On 8/3/2011 10:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: IndexedDB does however not allow readers to start once a writing transaction has started. I thought that that was common behavior even for MVCC databases. Is that not the

Re: [indexeddb] transaction commit failure

On Monday, August 15, 2011, Shawn Wilsher m...@shawnwilsher.com wrote: On 8/15/2011 3:31 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: When the db is doing a commit after processing all records on the transaction, if for some reason it fails, should we produce an error event first and let the bubbling produce a

Re: DOM Mutation Events Replacement: When to deliver mutations

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:23:10 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: Since there seems to be consensus to not do either Immediately or New task should I remove those from http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Modifications now? It is fine with me if someone else does it too. I instead

[Bug 13794] New: I think length-prefixed messages would be a lot more useful than line-delimited messages. Sentinel terminators, especially newlines, are more error prone to generate and parse than

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13794 Summary: I think length-prefixed messages would be a lot more useful than line-delimited messages. Sentinel terminators, especially newlines, are more error prone to generate

[Bug 13795] New: Support user resizing of editable content

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13795 Summary: Support user resizing of editable content Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

RE: [IndexedDB] Transaction Auto-Commit

On Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:02 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Aug 4, 2011 12:28 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote: On 03 Aug 2011, at 7:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Note that reads are also blocked if the long-running transaction is a READ_WRITE transaction. Is it

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:47:53 +0200, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are linking to HTML, more specifically to the WHATWG HTML specification. An example of those is Progress Events. This is done for no reason than political as far as I can

[Bug 9739] Editorial review from timeless on March 24/25, 2010

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9739 Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

RE: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10

On Monday, August 15, 2011 2:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:21:46 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:06:58 +0200, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change. It is

RE: how to organize the DOM specs [Was: CfC: publish new WD of DOM Core]

On Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ] Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob, All, The WG is chartered to do maintenance on the DOM specs so a question for us is how to organize the DOM specs, in particular, whether

RE: Possible errata for http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/

Thank you Tianzhou. I have made the suggested change in the Editor’s Draft of 16 August. Cheers, Eliot From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:12 PM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Possible errata for

Re: DOM Mutation Events Replacement: When to deliver mutations

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: Since there seems to be consensus to not do either Immediately or New task should I remove those from http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/** Modifications http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Modifications now? It is fine with me if

[Bug 13799] New: Should Transferables be transfered even when postMessage fails?

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13799 Summary: Should Transferables be transfered even when postMessage fails? Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW

DOM Mutation Events Replacement: Findings from implementing net-effect projections

TL;DR; 1) ObserveSubtree semantics doesn't provide a robust mechanism for observing a tree/fragment, and if we don't provide something more complete, libraries will likely register observers at every node in the document. 2) Not providing position information (e.g childlistIndex) in