On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>>> 2- property inheritance (regarding 4.4.3 [interface prototype objects])
>
>>Is this for the accessor (getter/setter) introduced in ECMAScript 5?
>
> Yes and no. Before ES5, browser venders still have ways of getting the
> getter/setter pai
>> 2- property inheritance (regarding 4.4.3 [interface prototype objects])
>Is this for the accessor (getter/setter) introduced in ECMAScript 5?
Yes and no. Before ES5, browser venders still have ways of getting the
getter/setter pair (__defineGetter__/ __lookupGetter__), so the scenario is
sti
On Sep 2, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
FWIW, this API is insanely complicated and has way too many
callbacks to
keep track of. It's caused me a lot of confusion and makes using it
incredibly complex.
Yeah. Let me know if you have any bett
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> FWIW, this API is insanely complicated and has way too many callbacks to
> keep track of. It's caused me a lot of confusion and makes using it
> incredibly complex.
Yeah. Let me know if you have any better ideas. :-)
--
Ian Hickson U
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> The spec currently requires the first 2 callbacks for the
> changeVersion method, while the 3rd is optional. The spec should make
> all of the callbacks optional so authors don't resort to specifying
> empty functions when they don't actually need
Hi,
On Jul 9, 2009, at 21:15 , ish...@w3.org wrote:
We second Martin's comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2009AprJun/0067.html
.
So do we, and we've therefore attempted to address them.
The term URI appears to mean URI and *not* IRI universally here.
That was
Hi Marcin,
On Jul 26, 2009, at 20:51 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
1. renaming the Widgets 1.0: URI Scheme specification to Widgets
1.0: URI (or Widgets 1.0: Widget URI or so)
I've changed it to "Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs". Not the most elegant
title to grace the delicate shores of TR but we've se
Hi Martin,
On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:45 , Martin J. Dürst wrote:
I'm interested to know how widget: URIs behave with respect to IRIs.
The only potentially related text I can find is "Unicode
serialisations for widget origins" in 4.3.
The draft now stipulates that addresses using the widget URI
Hi Marcin,
On Jul 24, 2009, at 18:36 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Why is the Widgets 1.0: URI Scheme about URI and not IRI?
Because it was written quickly :) And also because I'm sick and tired
of the level of terminology needed to address (no pun intended) what
should be a simple field — I'd l
Hi Moz,
On Jun 19, 2009, at 10:02 , mozer wrote:
1) In the same spirit as WARP, it would be interesting to make HTML5
reference, an informative one
After careful consideration I believe that you are right — there is no
direct normative dependency. It is now informative.
2) Probably the lin
Hi Graham,
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/
>
> This document appears to be mis-titled.
>
> Although it claims "This specification defines APIs and events ...", I can
> see nothing that I recognize as defining an "event".
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 12:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but for now it's better for us humans so we can just view the
>> content in the browser. Having to download the file, open it in editor, etc,
>> etc. is a PITA. Once the document matur
Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/
This document appears to be mis-titled.
Although it claims "This specification defines APIs and events ...", I can see
nothing that I recognize as defining an "event".
#g
On May 27, 2009, at 10:15 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this
front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and
that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme
of their own,
Jean-Claude,
On May 26, 2009, at 17:38 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
0- the author needs a way to point to resources within the widget
package
Correct.
1- the "URI scheme will never be used by the author" (written by
Marcos), the author will use relative URIs for resources within the
widg
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:26:19 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
Reading that thread I don't see a consensus emerging one way or another,
and a lot of options appear to be considered that seem to be out of
scope (or too close to the metal) for this specification. I see some
arguments around using f
On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
Right. That's the same point Arve made. I don't see a problem with
it. Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation detail
of its widget container - the base URI - but it's still up to the
container to permit or deny access to other re
On May 22, 2009, at 20:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
Ah, right, I didn't realize it was related to a discussion Marcos and
I had last year;
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/thread.html#msg50
I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of
relative refe
Hi Larry,
On May 22, 2009, at 17:29 , Larry Masinter wrote:
If the widget: scheme is intended for inter-package references
then there are security issues with that. If not, then why the UUID?
Inter-widget communication is a use case that can be tackled later —
this is left as an open door. T
Hi Mark,
On May 22, 2009, at 15:25 , Mark Baker wrote:
I'm curious to learn where the requirement that "Must not allow
addressing resources outside a widget" came from? Can you point to a
precedent for such a restriction in any other protocol? I remember
TimBL writing something to the effect o
I can't speak for the spec authors, but I can tell you what WebKit does at
the moment. We acquire a lock before we run the transaction callback, but
just like you, we do not have a timeout that invokes the error callback. So
it seems to me like overall our implementations should behave similarly (w
+ Dumi who's working on this for Chromium and has dealt with some of these
issues recently, IIRC.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Hi,
> In the processing model [1], step 2 says:
>
> "If an error occurred in the opening of the transaction (e.g. if the
> user agent failed
Hi Travis,
> 1- Mixing-in mixins (regarding 4.2.8 [PrototypeRoot], and sundry other
> places in the spec)
This looks to be a reasonable solution for the problem Andrew and
Cameron discussed about to me.
> 2- property inheritance (regarding 4.4.3 [interface prototype objects])
Is this for the ac
On Jul 26, 2009, at 23:18 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
The below 1. could be correct if assumed host is "beefdead".
I am not sure, however, whether in the widget-URI rule, we use the
authority rule from RFC3986, because it is meant to be opaque as
specified here:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widget
Below is the draft agenda for the 3 Septemmber Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the meeting on all of the agenda topics
via public-webapps@w3.org is encouraged (as it can result in a
shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before t
Hi everyone.
1)
Currently, SqlResultSet.insertId is defined as a integer. This would prevent
user agents to use an underlying database engine that does not rely on integers
for rowids.
For instance, both SQLite, MS Access, Informix use integers it seems, DB2 uses
a transparent type 17 bytes b
On Sep 2, 2009, at 12:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Yeah, but for now it's better for us humans so we can just view the
content in the browser. Having to download the file, open it in
editor, etc, etc. is a PITA. Once the document matures and
stabilizes, then we will serve it properly.
More i
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:31 PM, ext Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote:
I am fine this going for public working draft and hence get reach
more people/community for review.
OK.
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
...
just to make sure that we are clear on what you are objecting to: th
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> Simon Pieters wrote:
>>>
>>> I've now run a check on the schema based on the tests and it seems to
>>> be correct. I'd appreciate review!
>>
>> I believe RNC should be served as application/relax-ng-compact-syntax
>> rather than text/plai
Simon Pieters wrote:
I've now run a check on the schema based on the tests and it seems to
be correct. I'd appreciate review!
I believe RNC should be served as application/relax-ng-compact-syntax
rather than text/plain.
Yeah, but for now it's better for us humans so we can just view the
co
Hi,
ACCESS supports this publication.
Thanks,
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
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webap
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:14:42 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 19:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-schema/widgets.rng
Good. Cool. So I've made a few changes:
- renamed it to .rnc since it's in RNC
On Sep 1, 2009, at 19:31 , Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti wrote:
LINQ is a hard one to push as LINQ again ties back to Microsoft
only (single vendor). As a Microsoft employee I am super excited
about LINQ, but as standards advocate LINQ is not the right one.
Unless Microsoft puts some effor
On Sep 1, 2009, at 19:19 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-schema/widgets.rng
Good. Cool. So I've made a few changes:
- renamed it to .rnc since it's in RNC and not RNG
- modularised it as explained earlier — so yo
34 matches
Mail list logo
