http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10794
Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
None of the objects which allow transferring of ownership has children
so this doesn't appear to be a problem at this time. If it indeed does
turn
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@chromium.org wrote:
Now show me the code needed to send a message which contains one big
buffer from you that you want to transfer, along with some data that
you got from some other piece of code and which you do not want to
modify and which
How would you set the Origin header?
I have figured out at least one unexpected and surprisingly easy way to do
it in Firefox. There is a firefox addon available , which lets set Origin
header to any value. Addon is available from the following
link:
I wonder whether the problem is actually just one of generating
sufficiently cryptographically secure PRNGs or whether there are real
benefits to creating a full-blown UA-based Crypto API and the can of
worms that might open.
There was a proposal on the WHATWG back in February for producing a
The spec says:
At runtime, when a network request is made from within the widget
execution scope, the user agent matches it against the rules defined
above, accepting it if it matches and blocking it if it doesn't.
However, *blocking* is not defined. This has lead to inconstant behavior
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Marcos - given this spec is in the Candidate Recommendation state,
before a CfC to publish a new LCWD is started, I think it would be
helpful if you provided a list of the changes you propose and a short
summary for each change. WDYT?
I don't have a strong opinion on where the list of
On 6/3/11 6:02 AM, Margarita Podskrobko wrote:
In this particular case, the user might be not aware that there is any
this kind of addon running in browser and changing the value of Origin
header.
If the user doesn't know what addons are running in the browser, then
the user is screwed.
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 20:15 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Philippe,
Just wondering if we have different port support yet on test-w3c.org?
Would be nice to at
On 6/3/11 1:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Marcos - given this spec is in the Candidate Recommendation state,
before a CfC to publish a new LCWD is started, I think it would be
helpful if you provided a list of the changes you propose and a short
summary for each change. WDYT?
I don't have a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com
To: David Dahl dd...@mozilla.com
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 8:57:11 PM
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: DOMCrypt API proposal
Really, the API should be algorithm agnostic. We can discuss separately
- Original Message -
From: Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
To: Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com
Cc: David Dahl dd...@mozilla.com, public-webapps@w3.org
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 12:31:48 AM
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: DOMCrypt API proposal
I agree that keychains and the like seems
Hi Philippe,
One more request. I need some way of testing the RFC3490 ToASCII
algorithm. In widgets, we are currently using an icann url to do this:
access origin=http://हिन्दी.idn.icann.org/
access origin=http://उदाहरण.परीक्षा; subdomains=true/
We basically need some kind of equivalent
- Original Message -
From: Rich Tibbett ri...@opera.com
To: David Dahl dd...@mozilla.com
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 6:25:15 AM
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: DOMCrypt API proposal
I wonder whether the problem is actually just one of generating
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@google.com wrote:
a) Recursive transfer lists. Allow arbitrary objects, not only ArrayBuffers,
to appear in transfer lists. ArrayBuffers that are under objects in
transfer lists are transferred, others are cloned.
This again causes the
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@google.com wrote:
a) Recursive transfer lists. Allow arbitrary objects, not only ArrayBuffers,
to appear in transfer lists. ArrayBuffers that are under objects in
transfer
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12883
Summary: In section headed: Interpreting an event stream Step
4: If the event name buffer has a value other than
the empty string, change the type of the newly created
event
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@google.com wrote:
a) Recursive transfer lists. Allow arbitrary objects, not only ArrayBuffers,
to
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@google.com
wrote:
a)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dmitry Lomov dslo...@google.com wrote:
(I am answering on multiple points - I do not want to fork the thread)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API don't
seem compelling to me given the existence of backwards-compatible
alternatives.
This proposal is backwards-compatible. If the argument is an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
e) Keep MessagePort[] ports the way it is but deprecate it.
For anyone not looking closely at the IDL while reading this, this
means deprecating (for whatever value deprecate has on the web) the
ports array in
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API
don't
seem compelling to me given the existence of backwards-compatible
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
significant motivation. The stated motivations for breaking this API
don't
29 matches
Mail list logo
