Hi Robin,
Le 18/12/2009 18:01, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML, and lists its white
space characters accordingly (and defensively). If you're
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Yeah, you are right. I guess we get so
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On December 8, Last Call Working Draft (#2) of the Widget Access Request
Policy spec was published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20091208/
Widget Access Request Policy
2. Definitions
An access
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
Starting from the X-FRAME-OPTIONS proposal, say the response header
also applies to all embedding that the page renderer does. So it also
covers img, video, etc. In addition to the
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
Starting from the X-FRAME-OPTIONS proposal, say the response header
also applies to all embedding that the page renderer does. So it also
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
Starting from the X-FRAME-OPTIONS proposal, say the response header
also
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
No, there is a difference in access-control between the two designs.
In the two header design:
1) An XHR GET of the XBL file data by example.org *is* allowed.
2) An xbl import of the XBL data by example.org triggers a rendering error.
That's a bad
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
No, there is a difference in access-control between the two designs.
In the two header design:
1) An XHR GET of the XBL file data by example.org *is* allowed.
2) An xbl import of the
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
No, there is a difference in access-control between the two designs.
In the two header design:
1) An XHR GET of the XBL file data by
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
The problem we're getting at is that CORS is being presented as a
security
mechanism, when in fact it does not provide security. Yes, CORS is
Microsoft supports publishing a new Working Draft.
However, there appears to be a problem with the Respec.js script at
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/.
On Monday, December 14, 2009 12:54 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of
On Monday, December 21, 2009 6:43 PM, I wrote:
Microsoft supports publishing a new Working Draft.
However, there appears to be a problem with the Respec.js script at
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/.
Apparently, the script takes some time to run (at least when I tried it in
12 matches
Mail list logo
