TL;DR: How about supporting appearance: none for the canvas element,
and decorator as well.
The component introduces a decorator: url(#url) semantic to upgrade
elements while maintaining backward compatibilty.
Decorators can be applied in various manner, but this is where I'd like
to focus:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15096
Summary: 1.function supports_html5_storage() {2.try {
3.return 'localStorage' in window
window['localStorage'] !== null;4.} catch (e)
{5.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15097
Summary: function supports_html5_storage() {try {
return 'localStorage' in window
window['localStorage'] !== null;} catch (e) {
return false;
Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 00:01 +, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
Although I think this document is quite informative, I again would
like to raise objections about lumping app cache and widgets together
for the same reasons I raised last time.
Your last message on the thread last time made
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15096
Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On 2011-10-20 10:14, Sean Hogan wrote:
The primary use-case for matchesSelector() has been event-delegation,
and this is the same for matches(). More specifically, consider the
following scenario:
jQuery adds a new event registration method that uses event delegation
to mimic the behavior of:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
TL;DR: How about supporting appearance: none for the canvas element, and
decorator as well.
The component introduces a decorator: url(#url) semantic to upgrade
elements while maintaining backward compatibilty.
On 12/7/11 7:36 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
TL;DR: How about supporting appearance: none for thecanvas element, and
decorator as well.
The component introduces a decorator: url(#url) semantic to upgrade
elements while
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 12/7/11 7:36 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
TL;DR: How about supporting appearance: none for thecanvas element,
and
decorator as well.
The
On Wednesday, 7 December 2011 at 09:51, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 00:01 +, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
Although I think this document is quite informative, I again would
like to raise objections about lumping app cache and widgets together
for the
On 12/7/2011 9:45 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 12/7/11 7:36 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com
wrote:
Now let's take a look at Canvas components:
What are
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13786
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15104
Summary: In reply to: p class=warningFollowing HTTP
procedures here could introduce serious security
problems in a Web browser context. For example,
consider a host with
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 9:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Jonas,
Since you believe we should keep the values of version as a non-nullable
long long, what should the value of version be during the first
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 9:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Subject: Re: [indexeddb] error value of open request after aborting
VERSION_CHANGE transaction inside an onupgradeneeded handler
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, November
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 9:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Jonas,
Since you believe we should keep the values of version as a
On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 9:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Israel Hilerio
isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Jonas,
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 9:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1,
On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 3:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Saturday,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
A while ago sicking proposed adding chunked support to XMLHttpRequest:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webapps/**
2011JulSep/0741.htmlhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0741.html
One use case that we have which is not currently handled by XMLHttpRequest
is incrementally sending data that takes a long time to generate _from the
client to the server_. For example, if we were to record data from a
microphone, we couldn't upload it in real time to the server with the
current
21 matches
Mail list logo
