Re: Web IDL syntax

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > An alternative would be to reverse the omission of methods, so that > “getter” on an operation would always have both the getter. Then if > you wanted to omit the method if getters are supported you could do > something like: > > interface D

Re: Web IDL syntax

Cameron McCormack: > Other possible syntax changes > - And another one: get rid of the requirement to use forward declarations if you want mutually referencing interfaces. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Web IDL syntax

Hello WG. I’m thinking about removing some of the extended attributes in Web IDL and replacing them with non-extension syntax in the language. Originally, I had a goal of keeping compatibility with OMG IDL, which is why many features currently require extended attributes. Upon reflection, I don’t

Re: File API Feedback

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, timeless wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > > Hixie, I think a Base64 representation of the file resource may be > > sufficient, particularly for the image use case (which is how it is used > > already).  Can you flesh out why the new schema is

RE: File API Feedback

On Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:13 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> Local display of images before uploading them requires being able to > >> take a File object and poke it into parts of the platform that > >> currently only take URLs. I suggest that the w

Re: File API Feedback

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > Hixie, I think a Base64 representation of the file resource may be > sufficient, particularly for the image use case (which is how it is used > already).  Can you flesh out why the new schema is a good idea? so. I have folders with 100-100

Re: [WebIDL] On overloaded operations in an effective overload set

Shiki Okasaka: > I see. So the expected ECMAScript behaviour is to try to invoke an > operation that can be executed without applying ToString(), > ToNumber(), etc., to [AllowAny] parameters firstly, and then look for > an invokable operation taking [AllowAny] into account if no such > method was f

Re: [WebIDL] overloading and fallback

Cameron McCormack: > > I added [AllowAny] to support this: > > > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#AllowAny Anne van Kesteren: > So a.f(1.23); throws in the example because the method is overloaded? > I.e. it would not throw if the method did not accept an A object as > argument? Yes. If

Re: File API Feedback

Boris Zbarsky wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: Local display of images before uploading them requires being able to take a File object and poke it into parts of the platform that currently only take URLs. I suggest that the way we address this is by adding an API to a File object that returns a URL l

Re: File API Feedback

Ian Hickson wrote: Local display of images before uploading them requires being able to take a File object and poke it into parts of the platform that currently only take URLs. I suggest that the way we address this is by adding an API to a File object that returns a URL like this: scheme:

Re: "W3C and APIs" writeup from TAG members

Michael(tm) Smith wrote: For those on this list who are not also on the www-tag list, this is just a heads-up that there's an informal draft document -- titled "W3C and APIS" -- that's likely to be of some potential interest to people following the WebApps WG work. It was written by Ashok Malhotr

"W3C and APIs" writeup from TAG members

For those on this list who are not also on the www-tag list, this is just a heads-up that there's an informal draft document -- titled "W3C and APIS" -- that's likely to be of some potential interest to people following the WebApps WG work. It was written by Ashok Malhotra, Larry Masinter, and (I t

July 2008 f2f meeting minutes now publicly accessible

Almost one year ago now, we had a face-to-face meeting in Redmond that focused primarily on the CORS spec. Due to simple sloth and neglectfulness, we had left the permissions on the minutes such that they were member-only. But they are now publicly accessible: http://www.w3.org/2008/07/01-wam-mi

Re: File API Feedback

Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Arun Ranganathan wrote: I think FileDialog is a bad idea. We already have UI for selecting multiple files: . (And soon with DataTransfer.files we have a second one.) I would much rather wait with FileDialog until it is very clear that we need it. It s

Re: File API Feedback

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > > > > I think FileDialog is a bad idea. We already have UI for selecting > > multiple files: . (And soon with > > DataTransfer.files we have a second one.) I would much rather wait > > with FileDialog until it is very clear that we need it. It seems

Re: File API Feedback

Anne van Kesteren wrote: I would prefer it if fileName and fileSize were simply named name and size instead. It should be clear from the object what they mean. OK. I think it would be better if the FileError object was not modeled after the DOMException interface. Making it consistent wit

Re: widgets spec

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM, timeless wrote: > btw, don't forget the little people when you make the credits :) > > have a good vacation, sorry about the delays. > > all done :) > Ah, yes. I haven't kept that section up to date - apologies. I'll make sure I update the acknowledgments before we

Re: File API, Editor's Draft II

Robin, - The indentation of your WebIDL snippets is a bit broken, which makes them hard to read. I've got this nit numerous times; I'm going to fix it. - Do we want to keep FileList? I think we're all tired of those. I know that the sequence section of WebIDL hasn't been written, but t

Re: File API - W3C Working Draft 7 June 2009

Timeless, These are all sensible nits and I'll incorporate them. -- A* timeless wrote: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.xhtml Note, I expect all of my comments here to be of an editorial nature. In the Abstract: use of appropriate [DOM]DOM methods should return a

File API Feedback

It's really great that this is finally moving forward! Here are some preliminary comments on the current draft: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.xhtml I would prefer it if fileName and fileSize were simply named name and size instead. It should be clear from the object

Re: Progress Events normative text

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:00:46 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile > wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:54:10 +0200, Anne van Kesteren >> wrote: >>> That definitely makes sense, though please take into consideration that >>> for cross-origin load

widgets feedback

Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM 6:36 PM me: (e.g., a user agent could use an array, or an object, or a hash map, etc.). drop each "or" 6:41 PM For each element in the elements list, if the element is one of the following: A preference element: doesn't mention readonly (this might be ok, or mayb

widgets spec

btw, don't forget the little people when you make the credits :) have a good vacation, sorry about the delays. all done :)

widgets feedback

Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM 4:15 PM me: (e.g., floating and application mode) either floating mode and application mode or the floating and application modes   The following example shows the usage of the name element. http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets";> The Ultimate Weather Widget probabl

Request for Comments: FPWD of Widgets 1.0: Access Requests Policy spec

To: public-webapps@w3.org BCC: public-device-a...@w3.org Reply-to: public-webapps@w3.org On June 18, the Web Applications WG published a First Public Working Draft of the Widgets 1.0: Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec: [[ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20090618/> Ab

Request for Comments: FPWD of Widgets 1.0: URI Scheme spec

To: public-webapps@w3.org BCC: www-...@w3.org, public-pkg-uri-sch...@w3.org Reply-to: public-webapps@w3.org On June 18, the Web Applications WG published a First Public Working Draft of the Widgets 1.0: URI Scheme spec: [[ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-uri-20090618/> Abstract

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 18 June 2009 Voice Conference

The draft minutes from the June 18 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 25 June 2009 (the ne

widgets feedback

Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM 8:42 AM me: A conformance checker (CC) is a user agent that verifies if a widget package and a configuration document conform to this specification.   if => whether 56 minutes 9:38 AM me: when the rule for Verifying a File Entry

widgets feedback

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/ Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:52 AM 2:29 AM me: hey   suppose that times square becomes widget capable 2:30 AM and starts running widgets, like a Clock.wdgt   who's the "end user"? :){ 9 minutes 2:40 AM me: Bluetooth is spelled a

Fwd: Chat with Marcos Caceres

9:01 AM me: hey, you won't like this, but... I think we botched the l10n stuff :). The problem is that the design is based on individual resources, which is wrong. Negotiation should really be done at the Package level. This is one of those things where thinking HTTPish screws you over. A user thin

RE: [widgets] RE: P&C Last Call comments 1..7+

Hi Marcos, Thanks for all the fixes, reviews of the reviews and all your hard work! Enjoy your holidays! Kind regards, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com -Orig

Re: [widgets] RE: P&C Last Call comments 1..7+

Awesome! Thanks for all your help, Marcin! Your comments were really helpful and improved the spec significantly. Kind regards, Marcos On Thursday, June 18, 2009, Marcin Hanclik wrote: > Hi Marcos, All, > > I have reviewed the answers and I am satisfied with all the responses to my > P&C Last C

[widgets] RE: P&C Last Call comments 1..7+

Hi Marcos, All, I have reviewed the answers and I am satisfied with all the responses to my P&C Last Call comments as listed below. Thanks. Kind regards, Marcin [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, 1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0658.html [widgets] P&C Last Call

Re: XHR and sandboxed iframes (was: Re: XHR without user credentials)

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > > I don't really understand what we're trying to prevent here. > > Confused deputies such as XSRF problems. Original paper is at < > http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/ConfusedDeputy.html>. It's well worth > rereading. Much deeper than it at first

Re: [cors] Review

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Tyler Close wrote: > >> > >> We should make sure CORS is not being unduly conservative. > > > > When we're talking about security, I don't think being unduly > > conservative is a bad thing at all. > > So turn off your computer then. ;) "unduly" is always undue. Er, my bad.