Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: HTML5 just says that new History, Location, etc, objects are created for each (inner) Window object. Is this not accurate? What do browsers do? Creating new ones on navigation is indeed correct,

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > HTML5 just says that new History, Location, etc, objects are created > > for each (inner) Window object. Is this not accurate? What do browsers > > do? > > Creating new ones on navigation is indeed correct, but a separate issue > from makin

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I definitely agree you definitely don't want the inner windows prototype values if it's a cross-origin window. What you should get is less clear

Re: Window Modes todo

Robin Berjon: > To be honest, I'm not entirely certain of the value in enabling user > script creation of these events — but I guess that's another matter. Sure. > What concerns me is that all the initFooEvent/NS that we have all over > are all copied and pasted from one another, and it's not

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > I definitely agree you definitely don't want the inner windows > > prototype values if it's a cross-origin window. What you should get is > > less clear to me. > > > > If you should get the

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I definitely agree you definitely don't want the inner windows prototype values if it's a cross-origin window. What you should get is less clear to me. If you should get the outer windows prototype or some sort of blank prototype. Personally i

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

Hi Adrian, I am glad to explain the use cases further as needed. I addressed Jonas' questions in separate messages, so I will focus here solely on your questions. Please see responses in-line. Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: On Thursd

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta> wrote: On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Hi Nikunj, So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is what usage patterns people are going to want to use

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: > On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> Hi Nikunj, >> >> So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is >> what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with. > > Thanks for asking. P

RE: DataCache API - editor's draft available

On Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > Hi Nikunj, > > So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is > what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with. [snip] > > / Jonas > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Nikunj R. > Mehta w

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> One thing to note: any object or method that is exposed cross-origin should >> specifically *not* have this behavior. Instead, it should create a separate >> interface object in ever

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > There's currently a bug in 3.5 which is why functions are failing. It > is fixed in the upcoming 3.5.1 release. > > The only other non-"PASS" thing I see in firefox is .content, which > basically is the same as .top and so is working as expect

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Hi Nikunj, So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with. Thanks for asking. Please ask me again if this response does not adequately address your

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an >> WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's >> prototype chain.  For example, consider this case

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's prototype chain. For example, consider this case (where frames[0] is a same-origin child frame): var doc = frames[0]

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an WebI

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >>> When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an >>> WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

Hi Nikunj, So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with. Is the idea that people that use XMLHttpRequest to load data from the server will in offline mode want to intercept those XHR requests and respo

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's prototype chain. Hopefully, we can spec the behavior non-DOM objects, like Array.prototype.push, and primitives

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an >> WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's >> prototype chain.  For example, consider this case (wh

Re: WebDatabase/WebStorage (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Something like WebSQLDatabase would be better. It may be irrelevant in the long run, but definitely worth a lot early on, IMHO. I like your name suggestion. Nikunj

Re: WebDatabase/WebStorage (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

For what it's worth I don't think using the word "Web" in the name makes the connection that this is *the* *only* specification for storage for the web. I'll also point out that specs can be renamed at any point in the future if it turns out that the name is confusing. I also think the name of the

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an > WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's > prototype chain.  For example, consider this case (where frames[0] is > a same-origin child frame): > > var doc

DataCache API - editor's draft available

I have published the first draft of the DataCache API, which is based on Oracle's BITSY proposal [1]. Here's a link to the draft: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/ This document defines APIs for dynamically and statically serving off-line representations of HTTP resources. A

Re: [WebStorage] Concerns on spec section 'Processing Model'

The spec should not restrict implementations to any one level of concurrency unless there are specific undesirable effects. Restricting the database to a single writer means that if there are separate workers or background threads working to update non- overlapping portions, then they have t

WebIDL and prototype chains

When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's prototype chain. For example, consider this case (where frames[0] is a same-origin child frame): var doc = frames[0].document; 1) To which global object's prototypes o

Re: Do we need to rename the Origin header?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bil Corry wrote: > I think you mean everything will NOT be privacy-sensitive except non-XHR GETs. I don't think we've quite settled on exactly what will be privacy sensitive. It's most likely that POSTs and XHR will not be and that hyperlinks and image loads will

WebDatabase/WebStorage (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

I would like to suggest that these specs be renamed to better reflect what they are about. For one, using the term Web in the title draws attention as the one (or the primary one). Secondly, it says nothing about the constructs offered. For example, WebDatabase suggests that this is *the* s

Re: Do we need to rename the Origin header?

Ian Hickson wrote on 7/15/2009 4:53 PM: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Bil Corry wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote on 7/14/2009 6:37 PM: >>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Bil Corry wrote: Ian Hickson wrote on 7/14/2009 12:49 AM: > (Trimmed cc list to avoid cross-posting.) > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Bil

[WebStorage] Concerns on spec section 'Processing Model'

[Adding the subject, sorry for spam!] Hey folks, I have few questions on Web Storage Spec. I have checked the content of both latest published spec and latest editors spec. And the questions are applicabl

[WebStorage]

Hey folks, I have few questions on Web Storage Spec. I have checked the content of both latest published spec and latest editors spec. And the questions are applicable to both the versions of the spec.

RE: [widgets] P&C progression to CR

Thanks Marcos, my comments below, marked [DAVID]: -Original Message- From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: 16 July 2009 12:53 To: David Rogers Cc: Arthur Barstow; Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re: [widgets] P&C prog

Re: [widgets] P&C progression to CR

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Rogers wrote: >> Art, Marcos, >> Please could you give us an update on the status of the progression of >> Widgets P&C to CR? > > The editor's draft will be the one that is published (it is stable and >

Re: [widgets] P&C progression to CR

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Rogers wrote: > Art, Marcos, > Please could you give us an update on the status of the progression of > Widgets P&C to CR? The editor's draft will be the one that is published (it is stable and ready to go, and has been for a few days): http://dev.w3.org/2006

[widgets] P&C progression to CR

Art, Marcos, Please could you give us an update on the status of the progression of Widgets P&C to CR? I noticed on the publication status page this is still marked as LCWD. We would like to see prompt progression of this work given the level of effort that has been put in by all parties. T

Re: Specs using Web IDL

On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:27 , Simon Pieters wrote: Web DOM Core http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core This spec would probably benefit from being moved to W3C space. As it happens, I would like to know if someone is interested in editing Web DOM Core. Maybe someone from Apple or Mozilla?

Re: Window Modes todo

On Jul 16, 2009, at 04:46 , Cameron McCormack wrote: Robin Berjon: - I forget the original reasoning: is it useful that the event initialisers have canBubbleArg and cancelableArg since presumably no matter what parameter is passed they won't bubble and won't be cancellable? Shouldn’t canBubbl

Re: Web IDL syntax

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:07:22 +0200, Cameron McCormack wrote: Cameron McCormack: Following are my half baked proposals. I’ve now baked all of these proposals into the spec, except for the one about allowing multiple module levels with a module declaration (i.e., ‘module a::b::c’). * Made

Re: Specs using Web IDL

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:57:06 +0200, Cameron McCormack wrote: I’d like to know what specs are currently using Web IDL, so that I can keep abreast of what features are being used and help to review them. This is what I have so far: HTML 5 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ Server-Sent Events