WebApps has been asked to submit comments for the DeviceOrientation
Event LCWD.
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the Geolocation WG. If you have comments, please send them
to the following list by January 15:
public-geolocat...@w3.org@w3.org
WebApps has been asked to submit comments for the Geolocation API Level
2 LCWD.
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the Geolocation WG. If you have comments, please send them
to the following list by January 15:
public-geolocat...@w3.org@w3.org
I added a json responseType
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#the-responsetype-attribute
and JSON response entity body description:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#json-response-entity-body
This is based on a proposal by Gecko from a while back.
I
On 2011-12-02 14:00, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I added a json responseType
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#the-responsetype-attribute
and JSON response entity body description:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#json-response-entity-body
This is based on a
On 2011-11-30 19:42, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 11/30/2011 8:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 16:50, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Nope. If you need gzipped SVG in data URIs, the right thing to do is
to either extend data URIs to support that, or to mint a separate
media type.
Why?
Jonas,
Let me circle back to the top now and see if I can play this back.
1. Of course, when writing a server, it's up to me to implement access
control decisions.
2. To protect a plethora of poorly-protected servers out there, CORS
puts an additional level of access control in clients.
3. To
Le 2 déc. 2011 à 08:00, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
I tied it to UTF-8 to further the fight on encoding proliferation and
encourage developers to always use that encoding.
Do we have stats on what is currently done on the Web with regards to the
encoding?
--
Karl Dubost -
On Dec 2, 2011, at 14:00 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I tied it to UTF-8 to further the fight on encoding proliferation and
encourage developers to always use that encoding.
That's a good fight, but I think this is the wrong battlefield. IIRC (valid)
JSON can only be in UTF-8,16,32 (with BE/LE
On 2011-12-02 14:41, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 2, 2011, at 14:00 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I tied it to UTF-8 to further the fight on encoding proliferation and encourage
developers to always use that encoding.
That's a good fight, but I think this is the wrong battlefield. IIRC (valid)
On 12/01/2011 08:25 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to
clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for
Consensus to do so.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send
them to public-webapps by
It is not possible to have only one XHR document. There is already a
published CR for XHR1, which will always remain at [1].
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/
The question is what to do with that branch. Moving [1] to a WG Note would
help resolve confusion about the
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2011, at 14:00 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I tied it to UTF-8 to further the fight on encoding proliferation and
encourage developers to always use that encoding.
That's a good fight, but I think this is the wrong
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12510
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12510
Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
I'm trying to find the formal definition of 'custom request header'.
The term isn't defined, and rfc2616 doesn't define it either. Is it
just a header that isn't in the list of simple request headers?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Steve VanDeBogart vand...@google.comwrote:
In several thought experiments using the File API I've wanted to create a
Blob for data that I haven't materialized. It seems that a way to create a
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Jonas,
Let me circle back to the top now and see if I can play this back.
1. Of course, when writing a server, it's up to me to implement access
control decisions.
2. To protect a plethora of poorly-protected
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Steve VanDeBogart vand...@google.comwrote:
interface BlobDataProvider : EventTarget {
void getSize(BlobDataProviderResult result);
void getDataSlice(long long start, long long end,
BlobDataProviderResult result);
}
As you say, since the size is an
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:07:56 +0100, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to find the formal definition of 'custom request header'.
The term isn't defined, and rfc2616 doesn't define it either. Is it
just a header that isn't in the list of simple request headers?
It has
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Steve VanDeBogart vand...@google.comwrote:
interface BlobDataProvider : EventTarget {
void getSize(BlobDataProviderResult result);
void getDataSlice(long long start, long long end,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Steve VanDeBogart vand...@google.comwrote:
I haven't seen any other places where the javascript runtime satisfies a
request by calling a previously called function, but in this case it seems
like it could be done safely.
Hmm. Full interoperability might be
On 12/2/11 5:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 19:42, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 11/30/2011 8:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 16:50, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Nope. If you need gzipped SVG in data URIs, the right thing to do is
to either extend data URIs to support that,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 12/2/11 5:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 19:42, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 11/30/2011 8:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 16:50, Charles Pritchard wrote:
Nope. If you need gzipped SVG in data
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 12/2/11 4:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 12/2/11 5:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 19:42, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 11/30/2011
On 12/2/11 5:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 12/2/11 4:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.comwrote:
As far as I can tell, vendors are trying to move away from data
25 matches
Mail list logo
