Peter:
Thanks for sending this and the previous email. I'm sorry about
the slow response; it arrived just as I went away on holiday.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Peter O. Ussuri wrote:
>>> The current File API draft lets a web app to read the file, but there
>>> seems
>>> to be no easy
As predicted last week [1], I have replied to the outstanding issues that
had been raised on the following specs, and thus am ready to suggest that
we take these specs to LC to get wider review:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
http://dev.w3.org
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Sebastian Andersson wrote:
>
> I have a few problems with the WebSocket API as it is described.
>
> If the client is sending too much data to the server, I don't want it to
> be disconnected just because some buffer is temporarily full, but that
> is the required semantics o
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Adrian Bateman wrote:
>
> 1) In the WebSocket constructor, we think it would make sense to limit
> the optional protocol string to a set of characters that is easier to
> secure. The UI never surfaces this string and having something that
> doesn't require processing the fu
This addresses the remaining items in EricLaw's feedback.
I have a -06 spec rev opened up and spread around the garage here with various
fixes & enhancements in progress...
=JeffH
--
> Editorial & issues [Section: Abstract] defines a mechanism to enabling Web
> sites
fixed in -06.
> [S
[Apologies for latency, I was pretty much buried/OOTO during Nov.]
Many thanks to EricLaw for his detailed review, and to Adam for the detailed
reply.
Below is my build on Adam's responses (part 1). In a separate msg (part 2),
I'll respond to the (editorial) items that Adam didn't address. Al
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> Thanks Art and Nikunj!
>
> Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we
> change for WebStorage:
>
> StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're actually one of
I agree with the principle.
I hope this approach could propagate to other specs and WGs, like Geo API etc.
It is probably too late for some other specs, though.
Thanks,
Marcin
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-M
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Thanks Art and Nikunj!
Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest
we change for WebStorage:
StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're actually one of the
greatest strengths of the WebStorage API.
You are right.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Scott Wilson
wrote:
> Some more potential test case errors and fixes:
>
> ==
> bl.wgt
>
> ✔ Tests the UA's ability to locate an icon in a locale folder and at the
> root of the widget. To pass, after processing, the icons list must contain a
> pointer to "local
+1, duplicating material is a recipe for disaster.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:22 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 1, 2009, at 22:22 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Can you please update this to just be a delta?
As far as I know W3C specs, delta documents are u
Thanks Art and Nikunj!
Overall, I think it looks great. There are a few things I'd suggest we
change for WebStorage:
StorageEvents should be mentioned. They're actually one of the greatest
strengths of the WebStorage API.
Right now, there's a no for atomicity, concurrency-error-free operation,
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's a very generic comment... did the browser makers that are present
> over here actually try to update their implementations to what XHR
> specifies? Or are they actually waiting for it to progress?
>
> The reason I'm asking is t
Hi,
here's a very generic comment... did the browser makers that are present
over here actually try to update their implementations to what XHR
specifies? Or are they actually waiting for it to progress?
The reason I'm asking is the frustrating level of support for HTTP
extension methods; IE
The draft minutes from the 3 December Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 10 December 2009 (t
2009/11/30 Robin Berjon :
> widget.getItem("name") Revolutionary? Well, if you're in business selling
> keyboards and RSI relief, maybe.
I thought it might save on DOM pollution. I have been playing with a debugger
and the global vars passed between the Web runtime and debugger are
outrageously b
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:12:23 +0100, Stephen Jolly
wrote:
Keeping things simple, the most compelling use case I can see (aka the
one I care about...) is where the developer wants to write a widget that
can access resources on a network with no centralised DNS or
developer-predictable IP a
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us
to willfully violate the process?
Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions.
We have already aligned.
Thanks.
Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise
Hi Marcos,
>>You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us
>>to willfully violate the process?
Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions.
>>We have already aligned.
Thanks.
>>Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern
>>iss
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Marcin Hanclik
wrote:
> Hi Art, Robin, Marcos,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> Here is the consolidated answer.
>
> Just to clarify:
> I do not think that we should be so strict about the dates regarding the
> arrival of the comments.
If we were not strict, we wo
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:12 , Stephen Jolly wrote:
> Keeping things simple, the most compelling use case I can see (aka the one I
> care about...) is where the developer wants to write a widget that can access
> resources on a network with no centralised DNS or developer-predictable IP
> addresses.
On 2 Dec 2009, at 13:05, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> I am sorry for bypassing earlier comments, I want to answer them anyway asap.
> So here comes short summary.
>
>>> What are we trying to solve?
> Forgetting the UPnP and related stacks, the issues can be summarized as
> follows:
> - pattern for IP
22 matches
Mail list logo
