On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Then there's no problem. You don't need the templates to be live to
make child changes work. You just need to maintain some record
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/14/10 11:16 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
This is interesting. Can you give an example? I am wondering if you
and Tab are talking about the same thing. What sorts of problems?
The issues we've run into is that the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Dear all,
Looking at the use cases and the problems the current XBL2 spec is
trying address, I think it might be a good idea to rename it into
something that is less legacy-bound? Hixie already cleverly disguised
the
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 12/13/10 4:24 PM):
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Doug Schepers wrote:
This is an active call for editors for the Server-sent Events [1], Web
Storage [2], and Web Workers [3] specifications. If you
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Hi, Ian-
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that we hope to keep you on as co-editor, if
you are willing and able.
I simply don't have time (nor, frankly, am I interested) in having a
political or philosophical debate about
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
But we are looking for more than someone to just push TR copies, we want
someone who (like Ian) understands the issues, and knows how to help drive
progress through consensus and technical expertise, and who can dedicate
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com
wrote:
We definitely have use-cases that require the shadow DOM to be
dynamically
updated when an element that expands to a template instance
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/13/10 5:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Ah, you're thinking about changes to the normal DOM. We're afraid of
changes to the template.
I think roc explicitly said that he thinks the XBL2 spec's section on this
seems
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve
Disclaimer: all of my db experience is with SQL.
I prefer option A. It's simple and easy. Option B requires you to
potentially duplicate information into an array to use as a key, which
I don't like.
That said, I don't have much experience with out-of-line keys. Can we
combine A B such that
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Anne, for what it's worth, in my initial implementation in WebKit, I've
allowed .responseText to be accessed (without throwing) if .responseType ==
text.
Likewise, .responseXML can be accessed (without throwing) if
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) g...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org
wrote:
Now, when animation is happening on a separate compositor thread that
guarantee has to be relaxed a bit. But we'll still try to meet it on
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:33:04 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
I agree that a readonly Date object returned for lastModified is one way
to go, but considered it overkill for the feature. If you
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want these
functions to appear on documents created using XMLHttpRequest,
DOMParser, etc.
Quick, someone suggest a name, whoever comes up with one first wins a
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:43:21 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
Jian Li is right. I'm fixing this in the editor's draft.
Why does lastModified even return a DOMString? Can it not just return a
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a
reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of bugzi...@jessica.w3.org
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:07 PM
So what happens if trying save in an object store which has
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
After discussion with Anne and James, I retract my support for a new
constructor. I'm in favor of .responseType.
Specifically, .responseType would take values like (for legacy
treatment) / text / document / arraybuffer
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a
reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any potential
performance and compatibility issues. Are you imagining that the
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
One of the things we discussed at TPAC was the fact that
IDBObjectStore.get() and IDBObjectStore.delete() currently fire an
error event if no record with the supplied key exists.
Especially for .delete() this
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 11/2/10 11:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
So your concern is that jQuery will update to use the new API before
browsers implement it. And then once browsers do implement it and
start honoring the .responseType by making
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:55:58 +0200, David Flanagan da...@davidflanagan.com
wrote:
I doubt I understand all the implementation issues. But if there really
is some reason to have this blob/non-blob decision point before
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com wrote:
Take Firefox for example, it implements IndexedDB using SQLite apparently.
So implementing a relational API if we have to talk to IndexedDB that means
we have to convert from the relational data model to an object model and
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Like I said, I think creating an OM that covers all the cases here
would create something very complex. I'd love to see a useful proposal
for http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/.
It doesn't seem overly difficult. Using
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Like I said, I think creating an OM that covers all the cases here
would
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
However it still leaves my original statement unanswered:
Like I said, I
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Jonas just checked in a change to replace .remove() with .delete() (amongst
other changes we agreed upon a while ago). In light of that, does it make
sense for removeIndex and removeObjectStore to be renamed to
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Devdatta Akhawe dev.akh...@gmail.com wrote:
2) I've added two flavors of appendParameter. The first flavor takes
a DOMString for a value and appends a single parameter. The second
flavor takes an array of DOMStrings and appends one parameter for each
array.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Ok. I'm sold on having an API for constructing query parameters.
Thoughts on what it should look like? Here's what jQuery does:
http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.get/
Essentially, you supply a JSON object containing the
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Devdatta Akhawe dev.akh...@gmail.com wrote:
hi
Is the word 'hash' for fragment identifiers common? I personally
prefer the attribute being called 'fragment' or 'fragmentID' over
'hash' - its the standard afaik in all the RFCs.
'hash' is the name given to the
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Do we have a sense yet regarding who supports XBL2 as in the 2007 Candidate
version [CR] versus who supports the version Hixie recently published in
[Draft]?
Feedback from all (potential) implementers would be
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I've removed the searchParameters attribute from the URL interface for
the time being. We can consider adding it back at a later time.
;_;
Just today my cubemate asked me if there was any way to get at the
search parameters
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I think we should leave in openObjectCursor/getObject but remove
openCursor/get for now. We can then revisit any of these features as soon
as there are implementations (both in the UAs and in web sites) mature
enough for
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
3) We can drop the concept of Attr being an object altogether. I do
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
How is this noticeable from a webpage? I.e. why does the spec need to
say anything one way or another?
On Wednesday, August 18, 2010, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
For
example, what if script A has a FileWriter for
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Given that open() is one of those functions that are likely to grow in
parameters over time, I wonder if we should consider taking an object as
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Douglas Beck db...@mail.ucf.edu wrote:
I have recently read through:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTTP_access_control
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Origin
I've discussed what I've read and learned with my coworkers and there's been
some confusion. I
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Christoph Päper
christoph.pae...@crissov.de wrote:
Maybe I’m missing something, but shouldn’t it be easy to use certain groups
of origins in ‘Access-Control-Allow-Origin’, e.g. make either the scheme, the
host or the port part irrelevant or only match certain
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
If I'm reading the current spec right (besides the [NoInterfaceObject]
attributes that I thought Nikunj was going to remove), if I want to open a
cursor, this is what I need to do:
myObjectStore.openCursor(new
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
bs3...@att.com wrote:
Arun,
The basic concern I have is with the notion of browsers as the only
Web context and use-case that matters. The browser-based model for API
integration view (as I understand your position) is that the user
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I'm well aware of this. My argument is that I think we'll see people
write code like this:
results = [];
db.objectStore(foo).openCursor(range).onsuccess = function(e) {
var cursor = e.result;
if (!cursor) {
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As for the keyPath issue. The way the spec stands now (where I think
it intends not to allow full expressions), I don't think it really
depends on Javascript. It does depend on the language having some way
to represent
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi André, All,
Below, André asks for XBL2 implementation status. I think the last time this
was discussed on public-webapps was June 2009 [1] (and a somewhat related
thread in March 2010 on www-tag [2]).
All - if
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think we were operating under the assumption that we're going to
avoid involving the user until neccesary. So for example letting the
site store a few MB of data without the user getting involved, and
only once enough
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com wrote:
We have in mind that the incentives for developers to not always utilize the
most permanent storage option are...
1) Non-permanent storage is
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with
the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea?
I don't think we can expose the type of permanence to the user in any
sort of sane way.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
XML is also a misnomer. And Http is confusing as well, since these
requests can (and should) generally be carried over https. At least we agree
on Request ;).
I agree, but (a) that ship has sailed; and (b) dropping those
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm happy about this, as it also opens up a number of other use-cases
for free. For example, a webapp may want to use notifications for
events
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
You still can't promise anything about file size. And with the current
dialogs the UA is free to improve on the current UI, for example by
doing content sniffing to make sure that the correct file type is
indeed being
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a FileWriter at the moment is from input
type=saveas. What is desired is a way to simulate the load of a resource
with Content-Disposition: attachment
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
3. why maxiMIZED and only mini?
Hmmm, because they were added at different times? :) It's a good point, is
there a preference between -mized or not?
Since the alternative is to use maxi for consistency... I think I
prefer
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Bert Bos b...@w3.org wrote:
2) Drop queryScopedSelector() and queryScopedSelectorAll(). It is
trivially easy to replace a call to queryScopedSelector() by a call to
querySelector(). All you have to do is replace
e.queryScopedSelector(x)
by
401 - 455 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
