ISSUE-22 (Is SHA1 good enough?): Is sha1 as a DigestMethod strong enough for Widgets digital signatures?

ISSUE-22 (Is SHA1 good enough?): Is sha1 as a DigestMethod strong enough for Widgets digital signatures? http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ Raised by: Josh Soref On product: The widgets 1.0: Digital Signature specification currently mandates that the DigestValue be calculated using

RE: Agenda+ DOM3 Events (was: Agenda and logistics...)

While I support the idea, I will unfortunately not be around... (out on vacation through July 8) I'm not sure who else from IE would be interested in covering this while I'm out. -Original Message- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:5

ISSUE-21: should Widgets 1.0 allow fallback for element? [Widgets]

ISSUE-21: should Widgets 1.0 allow fallback for element? [Widgets] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ Raised by: Marcos Caceres On product: Widgets Currently, only one element is allowed in a configuration document. This means that authors can't point to alternative representations

ISSUE-20 (Content multi-view): Current model does not allow multiple views [Widgets]

ISSUE-20 (Content multi-view): Current model does not allow multiple views [Widgets] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ Raised by: Marcos Caceres On product: Widgets The problem with the way that is currently specified is that it does not allow for multiple "views" of content. For

ISSUE-19: Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements [Widgets]

ISSUE-19: Widgets digital Signatures spec does not meet required use cases and requirements [Widgets] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ Raised by: Marcos Caceres On product: Widgets R11. Digital Signature A conforming specification must specify a means to digitally sign resources i

Re: Using #waf for June 26 Widgets Call [Was: Agenda for 26 June 2008 Widgets Voice Conference]

Ian, All, On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:00 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Arthur Barstow wrote: The IRC channel for this meeting will be [not #webapps] to facilitate removing any Member-confidential material from the IRC log. And this is why I object to there being a member-only m

Re: Using #waf for June 26 Widgets Call [Was: Agenda for 26 June 2008 Widgets Voice Conference]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > The IRC channel for this meeting will be [not #webapps] to facilitate > removing any Member-confidential material from the IRC log. And this is why I object to there being a member-only mailing list. I think it's terrible that *even as a fully pai

Re: Need PDF of MS' input [Was Re: Seeking earlier feedback from MS]

Sunava Dutta wrote: Zhenbin Xu wrote: I want to re-emphasize that XDR is targeting cross-domain access of public data only. One can already access those public data on the server anonymously. XDR allows this to be done from within the browser rather than through server side proxy or custom app

Re: Need PDF of MS' input [Was Re: Seeking earlier feedback from MS]

Zhenbin Xu wrote: I think some people are as concerned about their personal photo album as they are about their bank account, so i'm not sure there is a big difference between the two. But I do agree that some parts of personal data is likely to have different security requirements than other pa

Re: ISSUE-18 (api-availability): Need to efine a mechanism to check for the availability of an API [Widgets]

This issue was "saved" before I added some context. Below is the additional context I subsequently added to this issue. On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:13 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: ISSUE-18 (api-availability): Need to efine a mechanism to check for the availab

ISSUE-18 (api-availability): Need to efine a mechanism to check for the availability of an API [Widgets]

ISSUE-18 (api-availability): Need to efine a mechanism to check for the availability of an API [Widgets] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ Raised by: Marcos Caceres On product: Widgets This issue was first

[widgets] Minutes of 26 June 2008 Voice Conference

The minutes from the June 26 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before July 14; otherwis

Re: Call for Review: Last Call WD of Widgets 1.0 Requirements

Marcos Caceres wrote: Hi Sean, On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Sean Mullan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marcos Caceres wrote: However, do you think we should be referencing version 4? has there been much uptake of v4? Not sure, but I would be more inclined to reference RFC 5280: http://www.ie

ProgressEvent unification / loaded attribute / "stalled" event

Hi all! I'm working on HTMLMediaElement (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#media) which I assume will eventually depend on and refer to http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html 1: Is the intention that ProgressEventbe be used for the standard error/abort/load events on HTMLDocument?

ISSUE-17: Widgets (not just widget engines) should be able to specify which proxies they communicate through

ISSUE-17: Widgets (not just widget engines) should be able to specify which proxies they communicate through http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ Raised by: Josh Soref On product: From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0440.html > 5:00 PM and as a should