I agree. Using the browser to access local-exposed HTTP resources is an
important way to bridge the native/mobile gap. User permission (pre-arranged,
persistent, or session-based) can be explicitly required if needed, but blanket
prohibition on intra-device communication via HTTP is too
This is one of those semantics rabbit-holes that I request we avoid. The term
webapp is well-known (5m hits on google in the common forms “webapp” “web
app”, etc).
In comparison, “web page” is probably a more amorphous and anachronistic term
and provides less valuable context for the
I agree. I'll help get this out the door asap, likely next week.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 5:44 AM
To: Michael van Ouwerkerk; Bryan Sullivan; EDUARDO FULLEA
Hi all,
I have updated the PushAPI ED for a variety of recent discussions including
many of the TAG review comments. The new ED is at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html. This ED will be the basis
for discussions at the F2F, which I will be dialing into.
Here is a summary of
I will attend the meeting remotely. I assume there will be remote participation
support.
Re the Push API, we are working on an ED for TAG feedback and other input from
browser vendors. An updated ED will be provided before the meeting.
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow
I agree, Push Message is the term that is used in other standards e.g. OMA
Push. The use of the term notification was a reflection of the current
simplified API design which provides only a trigger to the application, as a
notification that some data is available at the server. As we consider
Sure, we will look out for additional potentially confusing term overlap as
suggested.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Michael van Ouwerkerk
mvanouwerk...@google.commailto:mvanouwerk...@google.com wrote:
I think that's a great suggestion Jeffrey.
Specifically, I would
Sure, but this is only a reflection of the semantic space of the English
language. Many things can be source of confusion. Understanding context is the
responsibility of the reader. We will do what we can to provide clarifying
guidance on the use of terms, but Push Message is a well-established
One of the other changes in progress is to include service workers on the
design of the API. I don't know if that replaces system messages in total but
the necessary changes will be considered when a new draft is submitted.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Arthur Barstow
Thanks for the comments, Tobie. I will provide an update draft proposal soon to
address them.
Note also that I'm preparing a proposal to actually include a message body, and
other enhancements to the current API to broaden support among browsers. I
should have a draft for review in the next
Hi Webapps,
Eduardo and I have uploaded a new ED of the Push API at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html.
This incorporates a variety of changes based upon comments received since the
last ED. See https://github.com/telefonicaid/WebAPISpecs/commits/develop/Push
for details on
Comments below.
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:56 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: pira...@gmail.com; Webapps WG
Subject: Re: Files on IndexedDB
Hi Art,
Actually, the response in [2] says that we should clarify in the spec
Update: my comments were referring to the File API, not the IndexedDB API - I
mistook the context of this thread (somehow) to be about the File API...
nevermind!
-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Jonas Sicking; Arthur Barstow
Cc
Thanks for starting this thread, Arnaud. I have some responses below, and look
forward to discussions on these topics.
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: arnaud.br...@orange.com [mailto:arnaud.br...@orange.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:05 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:ch...@jumis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:08 PM
To: pira...@gmail.com
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem events
We didn't come to much of a resolution.
It was suggested that the current behavior in browsers was incorrect; that the
File should
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:25 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Charles Pritchard; pira...@gmail.com; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem events
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L bs3...@att.com
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:44 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Charles Pritchard; pira...@gmail.com; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem events
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L bs3...@att.com
Chaals,
Overall, I think we support this proposal but have some questions I would like
to get clarifications on:
Maybe I don't recall but is SysApps asking Webapps to take the manifest aspect?
Or is this something Webapps thinks is its right because of the prior focus on
Widgets packaging? I
Thanks for the clarifications - we support it.
And I will try to do less multitasking at F2F's!
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:47 AM
To: public-webapps WG; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Subject
Perhaps this problem indicates a real limitation in the same-origin policy as
root for browser data. In a somewhat related point at TPAC for example I
pointed out that the value of using IndexedDB for media storage - e.g. GBs of
music or videos - will be severely limited if I can't switch my
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:46 AM
To: ext Eric U; Doug Schepers
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: FileSystem compromise spec
On 11/15/12 7:39 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
As discussed at TPAC,
...@w3c.org; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA
Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12
On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working
Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so
-Original Message-
From: Olli Pettay [mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:48 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Glenn Maynard; Eric U; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?
On 09/26
Hi Art,
We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft [1], and
would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't received any
substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that it could be in good
shape for publication. With the addition of Telefonica
, September 26, 2012 11:59 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-weba...@w3c.org
Subject: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing
specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]
On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
We've previously called for any comments
Hi Art,
Can you update the Webapps Publication Status page to add Eduardo as co-editor
of the Push API draft?
We are looking forward to feedback on this update, with the goal of getting to
FPWD by TPAC if possible.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
+
From: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es
Date:
Comment inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Mounir Lamouri; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 6/5/12 4:00 PM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
On
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:29 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 5/30/12 11:14 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote:
* I guess the idea of
Response inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:06 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; ife...@google.com; Karl Dubost
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting
I support the FPWD publication.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:40 AM
To: ext Kinuko Yasuda; WebApps WG
Subject: Is Quota Management API ready for First Public Working Draft?
Hi Kinuko, All -
bryan Comment inline.
From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [mailto:ife...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:42 AM
To: Karl Dubost
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Karl Dubost ka...@opera.com wrote:
Le 29
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:15 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 05/29/2012 06:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
* I wonder if it is really
04:00 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
[...] I am following the Mozilla lead on registering the intent to receive
messages, [...].
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the proposal on the wiki page is
proposing to use intents?
--
Mounir
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:06 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 05/26/2012 05:06 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
* As far as I understand
, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
Marcos,
Re I thought we had stopped the whole designing for particular screen
sizes, etc. a long time ago., that may be the still-closely-held goal, but
the reality is that designing for multiple screen sizes (and pixel
densities) is still far from simple. Even
27, 2012 5:12 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Anant Narayanan; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest
Format and Management APIs
On 27/05/2012 12:36, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
Re At install time or when I am browsing apps, how does a server
, if possible. If delivery is
not possible, the user agent may discard the message, or may queue it for later
delivery.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA [mailto:j...@tid.es]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 4:36 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; public-webapps
Marcos,
Re I thought we had stopped the whole designing for particular screen sizes,
etc. a long time ago., that may be the still-closely-held goal, but the
reality is that designing for multiple screen sizes (and pixel densities) is
still far from simple. Even with all the tools that have
, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Anant Narayanan; public-webapps WG;
public-webappst...@w3.org
Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest
Format and Management APIs
On 25 May 2012, at 17:25, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Friday, May 25
Thanks for the comments. Some responses added as bryan
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 3:17 PM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 05/24/2012 09:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Thanks to the inestimable help of the W3C staff I am now plugged into the
mercurial mainline and have uploaded the first stab at the Push API
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
I incorporated Mozilla's client API ideas in
borrowed from EventSource.
Latest version is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.htm
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Ms2ger [mailto:ms2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:33 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: Push API
Sorry, cut paste error: the spec is at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:02 AM
To: 'Ms2ger'
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: RE: Push API draft uploaded
Thanks
a strong opinion either way.
Latest version is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Ms2ger [mailto:ms2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:37 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: Push API draft
as the Mozilla
proposal). Service lifecycle management, of which registration is a facet, can
hopefully be layered above the API for the most part.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 24, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 5/24/2012 7:08 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
OK, I
At least in the widget model, the manifest (including feature elements)
provides a means of disclosure to the user about the APIs that the app wants to
access. Of course if one assumes that users are brainless click-happy
automatons then such disclosures are useless, but at that end of the
Hi Anant,
Thanks for the proposal. It's good to see this moving forward, following the
workshop we had last year after TPAC.
Some initial comments:
1) Re version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The
User-Agent does not interpret this value in any way and is opaque to
,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 13, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Anant Narayanan an...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi Sullivan,
Thanks for your comments, some responses inline:
On 5/13/2012 1:11 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
1) Re version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The
User-Agent does
I like the idea. This would be useful for various things, especially if we
could integrate the discovery and selection of this feature (the local proxy
Web service) through Web Intents.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 4, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May
Marcos,
I think it would be great to update the document. While in the Webapps F2F
there were some good ideas also floated on supplemental metadata systems (e.g.
as used in WHATWG for HTML5) that don't require editors to do anything, IMO we
should also consider tooling that helps editors add
Hi Robin,
I'm starting to edit the Push API spec per the Webapps meeting in progress:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/May2012F2FMeeting (Server-Sent Events
extended to work with other push notification schemes such as Push SMS).
Some questions on the ReSpec biblio:
* Do you have a
I support the LCWD publication.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:44 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline April 23
The Server-sent Events spec has
Art,
I support the publication as PR.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:50 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Widget Interface; deadline
April 26
Now that
I support the publication as a CR.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 7:07 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline
April 11
During the comment period for the
I support the publication as a CR.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:45 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Workers; deadline April 11
During the comment period for the March 13
a good foundation to resolve the questions you noted.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:ka...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:04 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Ian Hickson; Stefan Hakansson LK; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Regarding app
What WebRTC needs is related to the use cases I submitted for the Webapps
charter update, for a Push API (based upon the concept presented at TPAC).
Without presuming any implementation details at this point (even whether
EventSource as it stands will fulfill this), we need the ability of
Ian,
Stefan may respond with more detail, but the use cases we submitted for WebRTC
consideration describe this as the ability to invoke an application and pass an
event to it, whether it is running (or not) at the time of the event reception
by the device. By running I mean that the app, or
*is* running, it's within the scope of what we have
discussed earlier as SSE extensions (and not technically a wakeup).
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 4:39 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Stefan Hakansson LK; public
]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:30 AM
To: gaut...@opera.com; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it
to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)
On 8/10/10 9:03 AM, gaut...@opera.com
Marcos,
That method works for well-know URI schemes except for http:// and https://.
The openURL() method would have launched the browser for those schemes, and we
still need a method to do that.
I was not able to attend the last week's call and was not aware there was a
plan to remove the
Anne,
Are you saying that it should not be possible now (with XHR L1) to
receive HTML files via XHR (Receiving HTML documents would indeed be a
newish feature ) ?
This does actually work for me in XHR L1, so I'm unclear about what you
mean below.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original
...@opera.com [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:51 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: RE: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it
to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)
Quoting SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:49 PM
To: Jonas Sicking; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:37:25 +0200, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
Are you saying that it should
[mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 5:23 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
Well at least it works in Firefox, Safari, Opera
it is supported.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:51 PM
To: Jonas Sicking; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update
On Tue, 10
: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:42 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux
Sorry about the delay in response; I've been out of the office
to the user-centric/control
paradigms of the past.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:48 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fette; Web Applications
]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:48 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3
models for Web application access to device resources
will be defined as APIs.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:53 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3
: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:42 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux
Hi,
Am I correct in thinking that what you find too restrictive
, and may support the
majority of use cases anyway.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
From: Mike Clement [mailto:mi...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:40 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working
I will not be able to attend today's call.
Bryan | ATT
distinction between the charters on these points.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schep...@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:08 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Charles Pritchard; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Event handlers - Pointer
Maciej,
Security is important in DAP, and should be considered carefully in the context
of each API and its use cases. There is no one size fits all solution to
security, and that includes approaches based solely upon explicit user action
(including explicitly expressed permission via
regards,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:02 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Placing broad restrictions
need
to fix the access element definition somehow.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:36 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec
...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:30 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Marcos,
I agree there is an assumption behind the approach I proposed, which I also
believe will be valid for the vast
for the domain
My preference would be (1), but I proposed the use of tag= to illustrate how
(2) might work.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:01 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Here are the comments I had to the WARP spec in the Webapps/DAP joint
meeting:
1) Does * grant/require either HTTP or HTTPS as schemes? It would be
better to allow https://*/; or http://*/; distinctly since some
applications may not be allowed by policy to access specific sources
using non-secure
Hi Charles,
I have an agenda item for the AOB section or wherever it can fit. I will be
spending most of the time with DAP and part with Webapps (Widgets), but will
try to balance the agendas to be in the APIs meeting as much as possible.
The basic question I have is what is the relationship of
Regrets, I have a conflicting meeting.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | ATT
Hi Art,
My action http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/357 can be closed. The
table that was requested was provided in Widgets 1.0: Window Modes and Media
Query Extensions http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html. I
didn't do it, but it does meet the original request
Title: Questions on AE spec
Here are a couple of potentially easy questions on the Widgets 1.0: APIs and Events spec:
5.15 The openURL() Method
Does the appropriate protocol handler mean an external application (e.g. browser for http://) is invoked, or can the handler be the widget user
84 matches
Mail list logo
