> Gerv had proposed..
> >
> > We would like to allow sites to partition the CA space so that
compromises
> > and problems in other parts of it don't affect them.
> >
> > I therefore propose a simple extension to the STS standard; a single
token
> > to be appended to the end of the header:
> >
> > l
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>>
>> On 10/2/09 7:31 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
>>>
>>> FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
>>> FileExce
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Arun Ranganathan
> wrote:
>>
>> Darin Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
>>> FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
>>> FileException
>>>
>>> This su
This is an interesting proposal. It addresses a different threat
model than the core STS proposal (because you assume the attacker has
a valid certificate for victim.com).
I think we should resist expanding the scope of the core STS proposal.
There are many different kinds of tokens one could im
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:35 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue
> Tracker wrote:
>
>>
>> ISSUE-95: P&C CR: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with UA behavior
>> [Widgets]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/95
>>
>>
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 10/2/09 7:31 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>> FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
>>
>> FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
>> FileException
>>
>> This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm w
Olli Pettay wrote:
Synchronous slice seems pretty useful to me.
Reader methods need to have some error handling anyway, so why to have
it also with slice. (I guess the exception is thrown only if offset or
length have out-of-bounds values).
Yes; the exception as spec'd is thrown for out of bou
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Arun Ranganathan
wrote:
> Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>> FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
>> FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
>> FileException
>>
>> This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm wondering if that
>>
Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm wondering if that is
a requirement? It seems that the rest of the methods are designed to re
On Aug 12, 2009, at 7:35 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue
Tracker wrote:
ISSUE-95: P&C CR: Conformance checker behavior intermixed with UA
behavior [Widgets]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/95
Raised by: Marcos Caceres
On product: Widgets
On 11-Aug-2009, Marcos r
Hi Marcos,
Thanks for the proposal.
I agree with the approach you suggest.
1:1 we may have problems with consensus in this matter.
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-co
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
What if the feature name would be "hardware://keyboard" indicating that a
keyboard is required for the widget
or "codec://H.264"?
That would be fine.
The above could be merged into "device://dev/keyboard" and
"device://codec/H.264" respectively.
That wo
Hi Marcos,
>>> What if the feature name would be "hardware://keyboard" indicating that a
>>> keyboard is required for the widget
>>or "codec://H.264"?
>>
>>That would be fine.
>>
>>> The above could be merged into "device://dev/keyboard" and
>>> "device://codec/H.264" respectively.
>>
>>That wou
I've started working on the official test suite file for P&C. Please, no
one touch any of the XML files or test cases or documents related to P&C
till I'm done. I'll be working on this over the weekend and probably on
Monday - I will email once I'm done. If you make changes, I will
override the
On 10/2/09 7:31 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm wondering if that
is a requirement? It seems that the rest of the metho
I agree that "pattern" implies that you could use regular expressions
(or similar) - this would be a much more flexible way to handle
access, but does have implications (e.g. no need for a 'subdomains'
attribute).
In our system we will be using the access element to prompt the server
admi
FileData::slice appears to be spec'd like so:
FileData slice(in long long offset, in long long length); // throws
FileException
This suggests that it may throw a file exception. I'm wondering if that is
a requirement? It seems that the rest of the methods are designed to report
success or failur
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
It is out of scope to define how bindings to features occur.
Why? Where is the scope defined?
The scope (and binding way the binding occurs) is defined in the spec
that is behaving as a feature. Take Geolocation: it clearly states that
binding of the geol
18 matches
Mail list logo
