On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Doug Reeder wrote:
The scenario where I need to use HTML 5 Database storage requires
storing a tree of data. Each item has a unique id, generated by the
database. Child nodes have a parentId field which points to their
parent ID. Creating the records for a new tree
Marcos, all,
here's a bunch of comments related to the I18N/L10N related parts of the
Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration spec (Last Call i.e. Working Draft
28 May 2009).
/1/ Order of material
From an editorial standpoint, I think that the 7.2 Examples subsection
should really be the last
Hi Scott,
I can see the UC for requestFeature, though its not something we'd
ever expect to use - we'd stick to just static feature declarations,
as we have no way of injecting scripts into instances after they've
already launched.
There is an ongoing debate about requestFeature().
BONDI spec is
Hi Jonas,
requestFeature() is mainly (still debated, though) for websites, i.e. online
content where the feature is not present.
feature is for packaged widgets only.
However this does not seem to be true
if the exploited code could simply call requestFeature() first, and
then use the feature.
Hi Marcos,
requestFeature() from BONDI 1.0 is an asynchronous API that follows API design
pattern:
http://bondi.omtp.org/1.0/apis/BONDI_Interface_Patterns_v1.0.html#asynchronicity
requestFeature() is described in detail in:
Marcos, all,
some more review comments for Widgets 1.0 Packaging and Configuration LC
(Working Draft 28 May 2009), this time of a more general nature (not so much
L10N-related).
/1/ RFC 2119 keyword usage
In writing specs, the work split between MAY and SHOULD is sometimes
problematic. I tend
Below is the draft agenda for the June 4 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the meeting on all of the agenda topics
via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting).
Logistics:
Time: 22:00 Tokyo; 16:00 Helsinki; 15:00 Paris; 14:00
Hi Marcos, All,
General comment to the below details:
It is possible that some of the referenced specs will change considerably and
may break some ideas from the current PC.
As you know PC is referenced by some other specs (e.g. BONDI).
Could we somehow ensure the stability of the PC references?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:50 PM, jere.kapy...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos, all,
some more review comments for Widgets 1.0 Packaging and Configuration LC
(Working Draft 28 May 2009), this time of a more general nature (not so much
L10N-related).
/1/ RFC 2119 keyword usage
In writing specs,
Hi Marcos,
I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.
What do you mean?
For example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#the-widget-element
viewmodes
A keyword list attribute that denotes the view modes supported the widget.
The value SHOULD be one or more of the following
On 6/3/09 5:54 PM, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.
What do you mean?
For example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#the-widget-element
viewmodes
A keyword list attribute that denotes the view modes supported the widget. The
On 3 Jun 2009, at 16:38, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Maybe, but that is just more work. That is the reason I am editor of
all the specs, so I can keep consistency across all of them. So,
unless I die in a unforeseen accident, I think we should be ok.
And a very good job you're doing too - so please
Marcin, Marcos, All,
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:14 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 6/3/09 5:54 PM, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.
What do you mean?
For example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#the-widget-element
viewmodes
A
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Bil Corry b...@corry.biz wrote:
My point is that a robust Origin moves us closer to better security
controls, perhaps not all the way, but certainly much closer than
CORS-Origin gets us.
I admit that I haven't followed in detail the various origin
proposals
14 matches
Mail list logo
