On Dec 6, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Given the storage mutex problem, I would estimate that Web Storage is
actually the draft that needs the longest review period. Going to
CR in
July would already be a huge
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Sorry Ian, you are assuming you are the only one that can edit that
spec. If you want help with editing the spec or with the test suite,
just ask. I'm not saying I'll do it, but I can
On Dec 7, 2009, at 3:29 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Yes, I totally got that and completely agree. However, we have a
number of people that have implemented this that could be pressed for
feedback. Also, creating a test suite for Web Storage would allow us
to find at least some spec bugs quickly
On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:29 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Anyway, my point was that even if I did have time to edit the
spec, it
would be a bad idea to accelerate the process. Reviewing a
Hi Yael, Art,
Thanks for your comments.
Below are my comments and refining questions.
Please let me know what you think.
Below are some comments from Yael re the View Modes Interface spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-interfaces.src.html
-Art Barstow
= Section 3.1:
Interface
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Note though: process-wise, Web Storage being in LC *is* a blocker to the
Widgets specification going to REC. Per W3C Process, a specification
cannot go to PR or REC unless all of its dependencies are at REC. It's
true though that it would not
On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:34 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Note though: process-wise, Web Storage being in LC *is* a blocker
to the
Widgets specification going to REC. Per W3C Process, a specification
cannot go to PR or REC unless all of its dependencies
Hi Peter,
On Nov 23, 2009, at 15:34 , Peter O. Ussuri wrote:
May I suggest then a specific implementation, in order to move the process
forward a bit. All names/signatures/behaviors below are intended to start the
discussion only, and not as a draft or anything formal. :)
Thanks for your
Hi,
I think XHR needs to elaborate on how non-ASCII characters in request
headers are put on the wire, and how non-ASCII characters in response
headers are transformed back to Javascript characters.
For request headers, I would assume that the character encoding is
ISO-8859-1, and if a
On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:44 AM, ext Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Dan Connolly conno...@w3.org wrote:
Would you two (and anyone else that contributed to the UniMess
proposal)
please make a patent disclosure for your proposal?
-Art Barstow
Are you asking them to say we
Hi Art,
For the Status of this Document section, I just copied the text
recommended at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html
I did not mean to obfuscate any patent disclosure issues. I personally
do not know of any relevant patents.
--Tyler
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Arthur
Sorry I missed the messages earlier...
If the purpose of the authority and query components is that they are
supposed to be processed by scripts in pages that use widget URIs,
then the specification should say so. Opaque fields with no semantics
and no identified purpose are not well-defined, in
I'll ask the TAG to review your responses at our F2F this week.
Sorry for the delay.
--
http://larry.masinter.net
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 1:54 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: public-webapps WG
Subject: Re:
Some more DataCache API Corrections:
- 4.1.1. Examples
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/#examples
No such thing as finish() used in the first example. Perhaps this should be
commit()?
[[
cache.transaction(function(txn) {
txn.capture(uri);
txn.finish();
});
]]
- 4.2.2.2.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for your response!
Opera's original file system API also had encoding as part of its call that
wrote out text — I think that's a bad idea. If you create a text file/blob,
you probably really want all of it to use the same encoding. Allowing it to
be specified on all calls is
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web Sockets API
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
4. Web Storage
16 matches
Mail list logo
