On Monday, September 26, 2011 2:36 AM Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
> > wrote:
> >> This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support
> >> the new WebIDL excepti
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> What's the alternative to the callback style from the proposal? It should be
> async, as both requesting and checking quota may require async requests.
See IDBRequest.
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#request-
On Sep 26, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/26/11 7:53 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>> The callback style is prevalent in the File API...
>> The enum style is also borrowed from
>> FileSystem.
>
> Those are totally different things. One of them is much saner than the
> other;
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> The callback style is prevalent in the File API, as well as IndexedDB. It
> seems quite fitting to me. Am I missing something?
>
> They are using vendor prefixing (WebKit).
>
> From what I read, WebSQL is temporary: I've not confirmed th
On 9/26/11 7:53 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
The callback style is prevalent in the File API...
The enum style is also borrowed from
FileSystem.
Those are totally different things. One of them is much saner than the
other; it's not clear that either one is worth emulating in other specs
in d
The callback style is prevalent in the File API, as well as IndexedDB. It seems
quite fitting to me. Am I missing something?
They are using vendor prefixing (WebKit).
From what I read, WebSQL is temporary: I've not confirmed this.
I'm super surprised that Chrome treats IDB as temporary. That se
Please don't use errorCallback/SuccessCallback. That's not used in any
other APIs that are part of the cross-browser web platform. Instead
return a request object on which events are fired.
Don't use enums as the syntax sucks in JS. Use strings instead. We're
making the same transition in a lot of
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14297
Summary: ja sam manijak iz gimnazijskog parka, veÄ danima
sakriven ja gledam te iz mraka
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg
Though unstable, Chromium via WebKit has introduced an API for working
with storage quotas:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-html5/msg/5261d24266ba4366
In brief:
void queryUsageAndQuota(
unsigned short storageType,
optional StorageInfoUsageCallback successC
The upcoming TPAC meeting (Oct 31 - Nov 01) provides an opportunity for
joint WG meetings and lots of informal sharing. As such, some groups
make spec publications right before TPAC.
Note there is a 2-week publication blackout period around the TPAC week
and Oct 24 is the last day to request p
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 09:09 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Olli Pettay
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
Moz
Hi Marcos,
On Sep 26, 2011, at 16:43 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Well, the advantage of a scheme is that it's solidly in the realm of the
>> implementation to decide how to handle it. We've actually been bouncing
>> ideas like the ab
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:07:12 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Anne, Ms2ger, what is the status of the Progress Events test suite (e.g.
% complete)?
http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/
All features are tested, including some complex Web IDL tests. I think we
can probably thin
On 09/26/2011 09:09 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
Mozilla (Olli Pettay, Jonas Sicking) have worked together on a
proposal for a replacem
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> "native" Newlines must be transformed to the default line-ending
>> representation of the underlying host filesystem. For example, if the
>> underlying filesystem is FAT32, newlines would be transformed into \r\n
>> pairs as the text was app
Thanks Glenn and Simon--I'll see what I can do.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:40:44 +0200, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> BlobBuilder.append(text) says:
>>
>> Appends the supplied text to the current contents of the BlobBuilder,
>>>
>> writing it as
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
>>
>> Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
>> Mozilla (Olli Pettay, Jonas Sicking) have worked together on a
>> proposal for a replacement for Mutation Events.
>>
>> Thi
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
>>
>> Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
>> Mozilla (Olli Pettay, Jonas Sicking) have worked together on a
>> proposal for a replacement for Mutation Events.
>>
>> Th
Below is Call for Implementation for the Progress Events spec.
Anne, Ms2ger, what is the status of the Progress Events test suite (e.g.
% complete)?
http://w3c-test.org/webapps/ProgressEvents/tests/
Original Message
Subject: Progress Events is a W3C Candidate Recommendati
On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
Mozilla (Olli Pettay, Jonas Sicking) have worked together on a
proposal for a replacement for Mutation Events.
This proposal represents our best attempt to date at making a set of
sens
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14296
Ross Nicoll changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14296
Summary: sorry, does this work
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#sco
pe-0
OS/Versi
On 09/26/2011 11:47 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
Mozilla (Olli Pettay, Jonas Sicking) have worked together on a
proposal for a replacement for Mutation Events.
This proposal represents our
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:30:24 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov
> wrote:
>>
>> Further, instead of packaging Web Components into one omnibus
>> offering, we will likely end up with several free-standing specs or
>> spec addendums:
>>
>> 1) Shadow D
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Marcos Caceres
> wrote:
>>> There are however many useful benefits in tying a packaged web application
>>> (using whatever packaging) to an origin, not the least of which is
>>> same-origin policy and overall
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
>> There are however many useful benefits in tying a packaged web application
>> (using whatever packaging) to an origin, not the least of which is
>> same-origin policy and overall just being a regular web app (that may happen
>> to have
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> I agree that there are no legacy requirements on XHR here, however I
>>> don't think that that is the only thing that we sho
On Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 18:26 , Mark Baker wrote:
> > Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between
> > widget: and http: is the authority. And if that's the case, then
> > instead of (from your example);
> >
>
On Sep 23, 2011, at 18:26 , Mark Baker wrote:
> Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between
> widget: and http: is the authority. And if that's the case, then
> instead of (from your example);
>
> widget://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66/index.html
>
> why not go wit
On Friday, September 23, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> I've some strong reservations about expanding the scheme into dns-land.
I''m still looking into this, but I don't know how we get around that. If you
have any suggestions, sure would like to hear them.
>
>
>
> On S
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14288
Summary: document.documentElement.insertAdjacentHTML specs
WebKit behavior instead of IE behavior
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Applying all the legacy text/html craziness
>
> Furthermore, applying full legacy text/html craziness involves parser
> restarts for GET requests. With a browsing context, that means
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I agree that there are no legacy requirements on XHR here, however I
>> don't think that that is the only thing that we should look at. We
>> should also look at what makes the feature
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:31:36 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
wrote:
This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support
the new WebIDL exception handling model. We would start by removing
all of the constants from IDBDat
On 09/24/2011 12:16 AM, Adam Klein wrote:
Chromium (myself, Rafael Weinstein, Erik Arvidsson, Ryosuke Niwa) and
Mozilla (Olli Pettay, Jonas Sicking) have worked together on a
proposal for a replacement for Mutation Events.
This proposal represents our best attempt to date at making a set of
sens
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:52:39 +0200, Israel Hilerio
wrote:
This is our understanding on how the spec needs to change to support the
new WebIDL exception handling model. We would start by removing all of
the constants from IDBDatabaseException. After that, the only thing
left would be mess
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:30:24 +0200, Dimitri Glazkov
wrote:
Further, instead of packaging Web Components into one omnibus
offering, we will likely end up with several free-standing specs or
spec addendums:
1) Shadow DOM, the largest bag of with XBL2's donated organs --
probably its own spec;
2)
37 matches
Mail list logo
