On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:43:56 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
(Incidentally, since XMLHttpRequestEventTarget inherits from EventTarget,
XMLHttpRequestUpload should implement the former only.)
I was thinking of maybe breaking that though in case of
XMLHttpRequestEventTarget I suppose
I took a stab at ACTION-11 which is currently assigned to Maciej:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/11
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#use-cases
If this is good enough I suggest we close the action.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
I don't think the presented XBL use case is valid:
An XBL binding allows full access to the document it is bound to and
therefore cross-origin XBL usage is prohibited. The resource sharing
policy enables cross-origin XBL bindings. If the user is authenticated
with the server that hosts the
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00:35 +0100, Sean Hogan shogu...@westnet.com.au
wrote:
I don't think the presented XBL use case is valid:
An XBL binding allows full access to the document it is bound to and
therefore cross-origin XBL usage is prohibited. The resource sharing
policy enables
Marcos,
On Feb 3, 2009, at 9:15 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
The spec now reads:
[[
A user agent is a user agent that attempts to implement this
specification.
Note: The user agent described in this specification does not denote a
widget user agent at large: that is, a user agent that
On Feb 10, 2009, at 00:39 , Sean Hogan wrote:
There are a few active JS implementation projects:
I don't know if there is precedent in counting JS-based
implementations as valid implementation to get a spec out the door
(maybe the Forms WG did it?) but I see no reason not to. In fact, I
We're interested in implementing XBL2 in WebKit as well, though I
can't give a specific timetable.
On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Feb 10, 2009, at 15:27 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
I don't know if there is precedent in counting JS-based
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a pretty radical change; I can certainly see the logic of it in
terms of reducing spec overlap. However, it does presume that semantically a
widget preference is the same as client-side storage. In our
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00:35 +0100, Sean Hogan
shogu...@westnet.com.au wrote:
I don't think the presented XBL use case is valid:
An XBL binding allows full access to the document it is bound to and
therefore cross-origin XBL usage is prohibited. The resource sharing
