On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
Test DR appears to be incorrect:
Test the UA's ability to handle a feature element without a name attribute.
To pass, the feature list must contain one feature named 'feature:a9bb79c1'
whose required value is
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
* A getCommonBaseSpec() method that will take two URIs and return a
URI string they could both be relative to, if any.
* A getRelativeSpec()
2) I've added two flavors of appendParameter. The first flavor takes
a DOMString for a value and appends a single parameter. The second
flavor takes an array of DOMStrings and appends one parameter for each
array. This seemed better than using a variable number of arguments.
-1
I really
Below is the draft agenda for the September 23 Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10674
Summary: [IndexedDB] Changes to indexes (and their cursors)
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
On 21.09.2010 02:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
CORS was recently clarified to say that error responses, such as
4xx/5xx responses, should not abort the various algorithms but instead
such a response should be forwarded to, for example, the
XMLHttpRequest implementation.
However it seems
On 9/17/2010 3:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
How do you then guarantee that a transaction that spans multiple
objectStores either fully succeeds or is fully rolled back? Especially
in the event of a crash during commit.
If you don't use write ahead logging, and connect to each database with
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 22.09.2010 16:15, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 21.09.2010 02:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
CORS was recently clarified to say that error responses, such as
4xx/5xx responses, should not abort the various
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 21.09.2010 02:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
CORS was recently clarified to say that error responses, such as
4xx/5xx responses, should not abort the various algorithms but instead
such a response should be
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 22.09.2010 20:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
For what it's worth, I think simple is meant as Must be handled by
servers today as HTML implementations can already send this request
cross site. Not as the HTTP
On 22.09.2010 20:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
For what it's worth, I think simple is meant as Must be handled by
servers today as HTML implementations can already send this request
cross site. Not as the HTTP definition of must/should not have side
effects.
...
Yes. That's why I think it needs
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:19:08 +0200, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
For PROPFIND (and other methods defined to be safe): it really doesn't
make sense to do a preflight OPTIONS for PROPFIND. Both are defined to
be safe. Both could have broken server implementations.
We don't
On 22.09.2010 20:25, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
For PROPFIND (and other methods defined to be safe): it really doesn't
make sense to do a preflight OPTIONS for PROPFIND. Both are defined to be
safe. Both could have broken server implementations.
Note that the OPTIONS request always has an empty
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:20:09 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
We don't want to keep updating the safe list. So they're all
unsafe. Or
maybe not unsafe, just not compatible with HTML forms.
What we're
On 22.09.2010 21:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:19:08 +0200, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
For PROPFIND (and other methods defined to be safe): it really
doesn't make sense to do a preflight OPTIONS for PROPFIND. Both are
defined to be safe. Both could have
On 22.09.2010 20:22, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
First of all I assume that you're only talking about including
credentials if the 'credentials' flag is set, right?
...
Probably. I'm not totally familiar with the spec, I just observe its
impact on certain scenarios :-).
This would require
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 22.09.2010 20:22, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
First of all I assume that you're only talking about including
credentials if the 'credentials' flag is set, right?
...
Probably. I'm not totally familiar with the
On 22.09.2010 21:42, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
So in these scenarios servers are set up to do authentication
verification before handing the request to CGI-like code (i.e. things
like php, asp, jsp, etc)? Can you point to any server software which
have such a setup?
...
As far as I recollect,
Hi folks,
While implementing the latest setVersion changes I came across this problem:
Let's say that a site is open in two different windows and each
decides to do a setVersion request at the same time. Only one of them
can win, obviously, and the other must end up calling close() on
itself or
Hi folks,
The spec currently says that IDBDatabase.transaction() takes an array
of object store names as its first parameter. While I think this is
fine I'd like to propose that we loosen that restriction and allow a
simple string to name one object store as well. Thus this code:
var
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:19:08 +0200, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
For PROPFIND (and other methods defined to be safe): it really doesn't
make sense to do a preflight OPTIONS for PROPFIND. Both are
On 22.09.2010 21:26, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:20:09 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
We don't want to keep updating the safe list. So they're all
unsafe. Or
maybe not unsafe, just not
Hi folks,
While implementing the latest setVersion changes Jonas and I decided
that it would be really useful to be able to signal to the caller that
other web pages are open and using the database (thus preventing a
setVersion transaction from running).
Consider a web page open in two windows,
A version of this message was previously sent by W3C Team request to a
members-only list.
At Art Barstow's request, I am sending the message to public-webapps,
with
all members-only content removed and all technical comments preserved.
I have also corrected one typo, where XForms was typed in
Additionally, I would like to point out Robin Cover's XML Cover Pages
newsletter from OASIS today cites this paper, which shows usage of XBL
and XForms:
http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletter/news2010-09-21.html
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/3916
Leigh.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:20:09 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
We don't want to keep updating the safe list. So they're all
Perhaps the new effort should be called XBL3?
Adam
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Leigh L. Klotz, Jr.
leigh.kl...@xerox.com wrote:
A version of this message was previously sent by W3C Team request to a
members-only list.
At Art Barstow's request, I am sending the message to
27 matches
Mail list logo
