https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25343
Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23346
Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
On 12.05.2014 18:41, Jonas Sicking wrote:
(new URL(url)).origin should work, no?
It does not work for blob URIs in Firefox.
On 5/13/14, 1:20 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
On 12.05.2014 18:41, Jonas Sicking wrote:
(new URL(url)).origin should work, no?
It does not work for blob URIs in Firefox.
It can't work, given how URL.origin is currently defined... It's
possible that definition should change, though.
-Boris
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Martin Thomson
martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
The push API currently identifies a registration with a tuple:
interface PushRegistration {
readonlyattribute DOMString pushEndpoint;
readonlyattribute DOMString pushRegistrationId;
};
It looks
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23346
Anne ann...@annevk.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
But expandos are usually added to HTMLElement and other builtin elements,
right?
Depends, might be on instances too.
What we're talking about here is adding properties and methods on a custom
element, which is a subclass
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Martin Thomson
martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that this offers applications more flexibility. For instance,
there are limitations on what can be pushed efficiently, and an
application that aims to maximize the value of a push might want to
push a
On Thu, 08 May 2014 19:42:04 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Bruce Lawson wrote:
On 7 May 2014 20:03, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Requiring a dash is pretty ugly. I would allow any attribute, and
we'll just have to be careful when introducing new global
Hi Martin, Doug,
I noticed there are two drafts related to push protocol:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-webpush-http2-00
http://dougt.github.io/webpush-protocol/draft-turner-webpush.html
What are the plans and expectations for these specs (f.ex. do they
address different use case
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I agree with this. But Adam's assessment of how long that will take to get
specced and implemented was in the order of year, not month. I share that
assessment.
I am also not at all convinced that I'd want blob: to behave
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
It can't work, given how URL.origin is currently defined... It's possible
that definition should change, though.
We don't want new URL() to take ownership of the Blob object, so
making new URL() reflect the origin of
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Sole had the idea of providing hooks for attributes so a component can
say it handles them rather than the user agent. That makes a lot of
sense to me. That way you can grab any name, even existing ones.
3 this idea,
On 5/13/14, 7:31 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Sole had the idea of providing hooks for attributes so a component can
say it handles them rather than the user agent. That makes a lot of
sense to me. That way you can grab any name, even existing ones.
3 this idea, would love to hear more. It's
The websocket version documents what we did for Mozilla and TEF's push
system. I also support Martin's draft as a base.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com wrote:
While I haven't finished reviewing it yet, the removal of the dependency on
Web Sockets is
On 13 May 2014 02:47, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Can't we mirror WebSocket? That seems like it would be quite a bit
simpler than full-blown HTTP messages.
Almost, though we'd need that single bit of metadata that
thewebsocketprotocol uses to signal text/binary. I think that XHR
On May 13, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
But expandos are usually added to HTMLElement and other builtin elements,
right?
Depends, might be on instances too.
Sure, authors can do anything
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
It can't work, given how URL.origin is currently defined... It's possible
that definition should change, though.
We don't want new URL() to take
On 13 May 2014 06:39, Michael van Ouwerkerk mvanouwerk...@google.com wrote:
Martin, in Chrome we use registrationId and endpoint for distinct purposes.
The endpoint is the push server url to which the app server posts new
messages. The registrationId identifies the correct {device, user, page}
Hi Martin, note that the latest proposal is to have only a single
registration at a time:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014AprJun/0223.html
This means that unregister can remain on PushManager and requires no
arguments.
Yesterday I also posted a github issue with the
On May 12, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Anne Van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
It still seems a bit sad though to tie these URLs to origins in this
fashion. Jonas is correct that there are inconsistencies in how data
URLs and origins behave across browsers, but it seems like we should
sort those out
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
And really, all user agents seem to agree that the origin is that of the
settings object today. That model seems to work. The remaining question is
the pro and con of denoting this in the URL's syntax. abarth's advice is
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25696
Bug ID: 25696
Summary: [imports]: link media
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25697
Bug ID: 25697
Summary: [imports]: why can imports be sync?
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
On 13 May 2014 10:24, Michael van Ouwerkerk mvanouwerk...@google.com wrote:
Hi Martin, note that the latest proposal is to have only a single
registration at a time:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014AprJun/0223.html
Oh well, that's a little unfortunate. It's logical of
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24042
Bug 24042 depends on bug 24808, which changed state.
Bug 24808 Summary: [imports]: document.write() in imports should do nothing.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24808
What|Removed |Added
26 matches
Mail list logo
