On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
For what it's worth, I'm not sure that eliminating is correct here.
With UM, I can certainly see people doing things like using a wrapping
library for all UM requests (very commonly done with XHR today), and
then letting
Hi Marcos,
Le 14/12/2009 16:49, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Cyril Concolatocyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Dear Widgets-experts,
While checking some of the tests, I found some unclear processing with
regards to the width and height attribute of widget element. The
The third sentence in section 4.1 reads:
When the XMLHttpRequest object used in other contexts their values
will have to be defined as appropriate for that context.
I think the word is, is missing in the first part of it:
When the XMLHttpRequest object is used in other contexts their values
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:03:27 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
My recollection from the meeting in seattle was that we did not want
to allow this.
In any case, it does seem like a very strange feature to me. Sending
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: null
would then mean essentially,
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1. Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
2. Web SQL Database
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
3. Web
Hi Larry,
On Dec 9, 2009, at 19:20 , Larry Masinter wrote:
In general, I support appropriate use of version numbers in
languages and language specifications, especially since
documents and file formats have ample opportunities for
in-band version indicators. It's unfortunate that URIs,
being
Hi Marcin,
On Dec 9, 2009, at 22:37 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
WOW:
It's a pity you were not involved in the discussions around PC's version
attribute.
Heh :) I doubt it would have made much of a difference; usage of version
identifiers in XML languages has been a topic for almost a decade and
On Dec 9, 2009, at 19:15 , Larry Masinter wrote:
4) ** EDITORIAL RE OTHER SCHEME **
In fact, it is possible that both this scheme and another defined to
access Zip archive content would be used jointly, with little or no overlap
in functionality.
Without any other context, this is
Hi Larry,
On Dec 7, 2009, at 20:03 , Larry Masinter wrote:
I'll ask the TAG to review your responses at our F2F this week.
Sorry for the delay.
Has there been any output from the TAG's meeting? I see from the minutes that
there is some discussion but it seems to be erroneous in parts (widget
Hi Larry,
On Dec 7, 2009, at 19:59 , Larry Masinter wrote:
If the purpose of the authority and query components is that they are
supposed to be processed by scripts in pages that use widget URIs,
then the specification should say so. Opaque fields with no semantics
and no identified purpose
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Le 14/12/2009 16:49, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Cyril Concolatocyril.concol...@enst.fr
wrote:
Dear Widgets-experts,
While checking some of the tests, I found some
Hi all,
In the test suite, the test br.wgt leads to a widget with no valid start file.
I think this should be considered an invalid widget because a Widget UA will
not be able to display it, the user may see an icon but nothing happening when
activating it. WDYT ?
Cyril
--
Cyril Concolato
Hi Larry,
On Dec 9, 2009, at 19:08 , Larry Masinter wrote:
Your reference to 'every drive-by you should use this! argument'
is mainly irrelevant to my comment and I assume your goal was
to be insulting, alluding to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_shooting -- unless you have
some other
Robin Berjon wrote:
Dear Larry,
thank you for your comments.
On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote:
5) ** EDITORIAL USE OF URI FOR IRI **
Throughout this specification, wherever the term URI [URI] is used, it can be
replaced interchangeably with the term IRI [RFC3987]. All widget
Hi Cyril
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi all,
In the test suite, the test br.wgt leads to a widget with no valid start
file. I think this should be considered an invalid widget because a Widget
UA will not be able to display it, the user may
Hi,
Le 15/12/2009 18:00, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
Hi Cyril
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi all,
In the test suite, the test br.wgt leads to a widget with no valid start
file. I think this should be considered an invalid widget because a
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Larry,
On Dec 7, 2009, at 20:03 , Larry Masinter wrote:
I'll ask the TAG to review your responses at our F2F this week.
Sorry for the delay.
Has there been any output from the TAG's meeting? I see from the minutes that
Hi Julian,
On Dec 15, 2009, at 17:34 , Julian Reschke wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
It seems that we seriously need a finding explaining to specification
authors that creating new terms where existing widely used ones can be made
to work is a bad idea that will most likely fail. Most
Cyril Concolato wrote:
Hi,
Le 15/12/2009 18:00, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
Hi Cyril
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi all,
In the test suite, the test br.wgt leads to a widget with no valid start
file. I think this should be considered an
Hi Larry,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Larry,
On Dec 9, 2009, at 17:55 , Larry Masinter wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07#section-5
gives several different examples of normalization and
comparison of strings for the
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
There seem to be two schools of thought that to some extent inform the
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, the
User Consent Phase and Grant Phase above could be replaced
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
Just so that everyone knows, IE has changed this policy, so it's not a
situation where we'll be waiting forever. See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250473(VS.85).aspx
Adam, were you aware of this policy
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:03:27 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
My recollection from the meeting in seattle was that we did not want
to allow this.
In any case, it does seem like a very strange feature to
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
The term drive-by comment is one made against a specification in passing
without the diligence and conscientiousness to participate in the follow-up
discussion; and typically to then re-iterate it later. I believe that the
On Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working
Draft of the following specs:
1.
26 matches
Mail list logo
