On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Jonas Sicking:
>> My gut reaction is to leave this out from the spec and not let WebIDL
>> specify security aspects.
>
> Agreed. It’d be fine even for other specs (HTML5?) to define their own
> security-related extended attributes to avo
Jonas Sicking:
> My gut reaction is to leave this out from the spec and not let WebIDL
> specify security aspects.
Agreed. It’d be fine even for other specs (HTML5?) to define their own
security-related extended attributes to avoid writing prose that defines
when SECURITY_ERRs get thrown, but I d
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> For IE9, we've adopted this attribute as well [msDoNotCheckDomainSecurity]
>
> It has different meanings for different types of properites (fields vs.
> accessors) and causes some proxies to be setup, but generally speaking it
> does allo
Monday, October 11, 2010 5:48 PM
To: Shiki Okasaka; public-script-coord; public-webapps
Subject: Re: CfC: publish a new Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline October 18
Thanks, Cameron.
[DoNotCheckDomainSecurity] is one of the WebKit IDL's attributes, briefly
described here:
http://www.a
I support this as well.
-Sam
On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Same here.
>
> On Monday, October 11, 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>
>> In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
On Oct/11/2010 6:56 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be assent.
Support!
Thanks, Cameron.
[DoNotCheckDomainSecurity] is one of the WebKit IDL's attributes,
briefly described here:
http://www.adambarth.com/papers/2009/barth-weinberger-song.pdf
I think security related attributes like this would be very helpful, too.
- Shiki
2010/10/12 Cameron McCormack :
> -minus
You've been missed, Cameron!
Just a reminder, my wish list is here (this doesn't have to be
reflected in the very next WD, though):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010JanMar/0003.html
A signed 8 bit integer type has been required in WebGL.
Best,
- Shiki
2010/10/12 Jo
-minus various people
Shiki Okasaka:
> You've been missed, Cameron!
>
> Just a reminder, my wish list is here (this doesn't have to be
> reflected in the very next WD, though):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010JanMar/0003.html
> A signed 8 bit integer type has been
Same here.
On Monday, October 11, 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
>
> In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
> Working Draft of Web IDL since he says "I’ve finished porting across Web IDL
> to target
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:56:22 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
Working Draft of Web IDL since he says "I’ve finished porting across Web
IDL to target ECMAScript 5th edition (modulo bugs of course!)":
http://dev.w3.org/2006/
Hi All,
In case you didn't know, Cameron is back! And he wants to publish a new
Working Draft of Web IDL since he says "I’ve finished porting across Web
IDL to target ECMAScript 5th edition (modulo bugs of course!)":
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/
As such, this is a Call for Consensu
12 matches
Mail list logo
