Mike(tm) Smith has set up a Last Call comments tracker for the Widgets
1.0: Requirements document:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-reqs-20080625
All comments will be tracked through there.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:16:46 +0200, Arun Ranganathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
chaals et al.,
Yep. I am waiting for people to comment on whether they are happy to
roll up about 11 on Tuesday
I am happy enough with an 11a.m. start time; I suspect, however, that
our discussions will
I want to re-emphasize that XDR is targeting cross-domain access of public data
only. One can already access those public data on the server anonymously. XDR
allows this to be done from within the browser rather than through server side
proxy or custom applications. The custom header is
Marcos Caceres wrote:
What version of X.509 are you referencing? v3, v4?
I've updated the references to version 3, using the following citation:
ITU-T Recommendation X.509 version 3 (1997). Information Technology -
Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory Authentication Framework
ISO/IEC
Hi Anne,
Thanks for your reply. (We are assuming that this is not a formal reply
from the webapps WG.)
The XHTML 2 working group discussed the XHR draft at a recent
teleconference, and I was asked to send in a brief comment. Basically,
the XHTML 2 Working Group is concerned that the
Hi WebApps Fans-
Because of a number of regrets, today's DOM3 Events telcon has been
cancelled. We will also not meet next week, due to the F2F.
We will resume telcons in 2 weeks, on July 9.
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Hi,
perhaps the test style could be something like in the attached file,
in which I modified your original test a bit.
The idea is that vendor could provide vendor_functions.js which defines
functions to integrate test to vendor's own test system.
-Olli
Carmelo Montanez wrote:
Hi:
Given
Doug Schepers, Charles McCathieNevile (Chairs), Members of the WG,
On behalf of Mozilla, I'd like to introduce the possibility of two new
work items for this group to consider. Neither of these is presented as
a fait accompli, although we would like to consider both of these for
inclusion
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Worker Threads in Script. The idea is to offer developers the ability to
spawn threads from within web content, as well as cross-thread communication
mechanisms such as postMessage. Mozilla presents preliminary
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Doug Schepers, Charles McCathieNevile (Chairs), Members of the WG,
On behalf of Mozilla, I'd like to introduce the possibility of two
new work items for this group to consider. Neither of these is
presented as a fait accompli,
Maciej,
1. Worker Threads in Script.
Apple is interested in a worker API. The key issues for workers, in my
opinion, are security, messaging, and which of the normal APIs are
available. Right now, these things are covered in HTML5, so I think
that may be a better place to add a Worker
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
1. Worker Threads in Script. The idea is to offer developers the
ability to spawn threads from within web content, as well as
cross-thread communication mechanisms such as postMessage. Mozilla
presents preliminary thought on the subject [1],
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Doug Schepers, Charles McCathieNevile (Chairs), Members of the WG,
On behalf of Mozilla, I'd like to introduce the possibility of two new
work items for this group to consider. Neither of these is presented
as
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Mozilla
presents preliminary thought on the subject [1], and notes similar
straw persons proposed by WHATWG [2] and by Google Gears [3]. Also
for reference see worker threads in C# [4]. The Web Apps working
group seems like a logical
On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
CC trimmed a bit for people I know are in the list without looking.
Sadly Microsoft still haven't got around to joining, so it falls on
Chris to pass this on until they get to do the legal work.
NB: The chairs are actually Art
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:25:56 +0200, Chris Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Assuming [Microsoft] have made the patent policy commitment and joined
the group
by then they are even welcome to take part ;)
Just an update - I've filed the paperwork, it's gone
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:32:20 +0200, Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the upcoming F2F, I would also like to spend an hour or two
discussing DOM3 Events, if we find the time and have the right people. I
don't care what day this happens on.
Hmm. Given that we announced quite a
Hi Sean,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Sean Mullan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
However, do you think we should be referencing version 4? has there
been much uptake of v4?
Not sure, but I would be more inclined to reference RFC 5280:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt
Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, WebApps WG-
The WebApps F2F meeting page has been updated to reflect the current
agenda:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/Group/f2f0807.html (member-only)
I do notice that some of the times are in what you americans call
'military time', and some times are in
Hi, Jonas-
Jonas Sicking wrote (on 6/25/08 8:48 PM):
Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, WebApps WG-
The WebApps F2F meeting page has been updated to reflect the current
agenda:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/Group/f2f0807.html (member-only)
I do notice that some of the times are in what you
Thanks for the update. Just an FYI, I've got ahead and made reservations at
Maggianno's for the 2nd at 6.30.
(Moved it from the 3rd).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-webapps-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Schepers
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:47
21 matches
Mail list logo
