On 1/2/12 20:03 , Ian Hickson wrote:
As a user when I install an app, I want to be able to give it access to
a selection of:
Providing access to these things when the app is installed is IMHO a net
worse security model than granting access to these things implicitly when
the feature is
On 1 Feb 2012, at 21:04, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-02 -01, at 15:23, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Tim,
On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 at 16:42, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
Note that when people talk about installation, they often immediately
discuss
packaging and manifest formats,
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:34 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Greetings Adrian,
Sorry for the delay in responding to this email.
Strictly speaking, we could remove the Blob Protocol Version (BLV) [1]. It
isn't returned in getAllResponseHeaders. BLV 's purpose was in case the
protocol
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15856
Summary: [IndexedDB] Remove empty string as a possible version
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Hi Bronislav,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
Hello,
based on this bug
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=93609
referencing
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/#dom-websocket-close
Looking in WebSocket protocol close
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:39 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
We have a draft
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
I'm pretty sure that I've seen implementer interest, and it's very
obvious that there's a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
(From Glenn Maynard)
I think it's dangerous to assume that the URL will only be
dereferenced
once. For example, it would mean that the above image would break
if
the
user toggled images off and back on in a
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob is a reality? Mainly,
if we modify things for the *most common* use case, that could be useful
in mitigating some of our fears. Hixie, is this possible?
Anything's possible, but I think the pain
On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
2. Could we modify things so that img.src = blob is a reality? Mainly,
if we modify things for the *most common* use case, that could be useful
in mitigating some of our fears.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Blob.prototype.toString=function(){ return URL.createObjectURL(this);
};
We *really* don't want to make a function that gets automatically called
leak memory like this.
- Kyle
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:27:08 +0100, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
would it be possible to have Image.toBlob() function? We are introducing
Canvas.toBlob(), image (and maybe video, audio) would be nice addition
Are the additional resource required to drawing the image
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:27:08 +0100, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
would it be possible to have Image.toBlob() function? We are introducing
Canvas.toBlob(), image (and maybe video, audio) would
On Feb 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:27:08 +0100, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
would it be possible to have Image.toBlob() function? We are introducing
Canvas.toBlob(), image (and maybe video, audio) would be
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:39 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
We have a draft
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:09:44 +0100, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
I'm fine with publishing this through WebApps.
is there any reason this should be done as part of CSSOM View? i notice a
to do listed at [1] as:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:09:44 +0100, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
I'm fine with publishing this through WebApps.
is there any reason
On 2.2.2012 23:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:27:08 +0100, Bronislav Klučka
bronislav.klu...@bauglir.com wrote:
would it be possible to have Image.toBlob() function? We are
introducing Canvas.toBlob(), image (and maybe video, audio) would be
nice addition
Are the
(You're blue today.)
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
They are a pain, and lossy.
You don't want to do drawImage then a toBlob png on an image that's a
jpeg. We've had to use followup XHR calls which may or may not do another
http fetch. We went the
On 2/2/12 8:14 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(You're blue today.)
I can't stop myself from responding on my mobile phone. Bad habit :-).
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
They are a pain, and lossy.
You don't want to do
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
**
There's nothing like it in current implementations. I'd think it rare to
come across an instance where an author has only made a clone image, and
done nothing else. They'd just use the img element in such a case.
On 2/2/12 9:03 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
With that scheme, though, if you were really referencing an image,
then your toDataURL and toBlob output, given no optional
parameters were specified, and the file format were the same, well
it could be a copy of the binary data.
That's
On 2.2.2012 21:25, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Well, I'm a fan of img.src = blob being made a reality, *and* of the
URL API being solidified. I'm not 100% sure how we can scope create*
to an Element in the DOM. While open to a suggestion that clarifies
your thoughts on this, I'm worried that
Sorry for the extremely slow reply. It slipped through hundreds of emails :(
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.comwrote:
To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the other elements:
- OBJECT: Could be used for SVG as I understand.
OBJECT is considered a
On 2/2/12 10:14 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Sorry for the extremely slow reply. It slipped through hundreds of
emails :(
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com mailto:hallv...@opera.com wrote:
To me, it doesn't make sense to remove the other elements:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Seems like a very minor risk for high security sites, e.g. banking, in
identifying form elements.
In the spirit of giving it some thought:
But even for those websites, what could input / textarea elements can
reveal
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm not sure what a concrete proposal would look like. Maybe
Element.URL.createObjectURL or just Element.createObjectURL?
Wouldn't returning
On 3.2.2012 7:34, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org
wrote:
I'm not sure what a concrete proposal would look like. Maybe
Element.URL.createObjectURL or just
On 2/2/12 10:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
mailto:ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Seems like a very minor risk for high security sites, e.g.
banking, in identifying form elements.
In the spirit of giving it some thought:
But
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
**
On 2/2/12 10:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.comwrote:
Seems like a very minor risk for high security sites, e.g. banking, in
identifying form elements.
On 2/2/12 10:40 PM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 3.2.2012 7:34, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org
wrote:
I'm not sure what a concrete proposal would look like.
On 3.2.2012 7:51, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 2/2/12 10:40 PM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 3.2.2012 7:34, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 28.1.2012 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Kyle Huey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org
wrote:
I'm not
On 2/2/12 11:08 PM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 3.2.2012 7:51, Charles Pritchard wrote:
I see no reason why an author should expect to stash 100MB of objects
into createObjectURL, nor any reason why a UA could not manage 100MB
for the application lifetime; the user can certainly be informed, as
On 3.2.2012 8:24, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 2/2/12 11:08 PM, Bronislav Klučka wrote:
On 3.2.2012 7:51, Charles Pritchard wrote:
I see no reason why an author should expect to stash 100MB of
objects into createObjectURL, nor any reason why a UA could not
manage 100MB for the application
33 matches
Mail list logo
