On 12/6/12 16:08 , Mounir Lamouri wrote:
2. Discovery: some consumers seem to be inclined to use Web Intents to
discover other services. This is what Bryan Sullivan suggested for the
Push Notification API. When the Intent is invoked no action would
actually be taken, instead a URL is returned
On 29/5/12 17:56 , Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-05-29 16:53, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
* Messages should be encoded usingplain text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_text
No, messages
, but I hate relying on their judgment on privacy-related data.
So I hope you are wrong, and we can find a workable model with finer grain.
Best regards
JC
On 8/2/12 14:21 , Robin Berjon wrote:
On Feb 8, 2012, at 01:06 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
On 7/2/12 05:31 , Robin Berjon wrote:
The first
On 7/2/12 05:31 , Robin Berjon wrote:
The first problem is that of the security model. A lot of smart people have
tried to come up with a lot of different solutions here, often involving
signatures, policies, intricate user interfaces, etc. I think that's all
massively over-engineered. Once
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 18/12/11 20:31 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
Undated references (what you are suggesting) has the MAJOR PROBLEM that it
makes it DIFFICULT/IMPOSSIBLE to do validation of any product that claims
conformance to a standard – since
. If the scope of one reference
changes, there is a new risk. It is not only a problem of conformance
testing.
Your vision of fluid standards is completely unmanageable in practice.
Regards
JC
On 19/12/11 12:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Jean-Claude
What is the exact problem with this document ?
Best regards
JC
On 14/11/11 13:56 , Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:30:28 +0100, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
As sa note, that document is in violation of
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
The working language of the
Marcos Caceres a écrit :
From the spec ...an author can request that a widget asynchronously
check if a widget has been updated [(i.e., that a new version of the
widget package is available online)] via the widget.update() method,
defined in the Widgets-API specification. This strategy also
Dear Robin,
Thanks for your email.
Robin Berjon a écrit :
There would then be a good case for the WG to spend some time on
devising a proper workaround.
Anyone sharing my opinion that the widget update feature will be
consistenly implemented (even if optional) ?
You seem to be mixing up
Robin Berjon a écrit :
If by text content you mean actual text content, then there is no
difference whatsoever between what can be stored in an attribute value
and the text content (as per DOM 3 textContent) of an element — at
least not semantically.
JCD: I think I agree with you Robin, but
We are wondering about the choice of an attribute to store the value of
a preference.
We would prefer to use the text content of the preference element for
the value of the preference.
Is there a good reason that we missed for using an attribute instead ?
Thanks
JC
--
JC Dufourd
Groupe
Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this
front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and that
UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme of their
own, the situation may well arise where they have specified
13 matches
Mail list logo
