On 11 Feb 2010, at 08:37, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
>>> - inter-widget communication (both single-user and multi-user, e.g.
>>> collaboration)
>
> I find this item to be interesting and worth taking on, but I think we ought
> to also evaluate it in a wider context than widgets.
+1
If this partic
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:40:04 +0100, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
Scott Wilson wrote (on 2/9/10 10:32 AM):
There are a couple of additional areas it would be useful to consider
for future work in the Widgets space, specifically:
- inter-widget communication (both single-user and multi-use
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>
>> And I think the answer is "yes". Any time someone talks about an
>> optional web feature I get nervous. Can you give any examples of
>> successful optional web features that exis
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:39:45 +0100, Eric Westenberger
wrote:
sorry, I am not able to follow this explanation.To which binding are you
refering?
See the bits about Web IDL. Specifically the "getter" keyword specified on
the SQLResultSetRowList interface.
I came across this problem when tr
Hi, Folks-
Scott Wilson wrote (on 2/9/10 10:32 AM):
There are a couple of additional areas it would be useful to consider
for future work in the Widgets space, specifically:
- inter-widget communication (both single-user and multi-user, e.g.
collaboration)
- social web APIs for widgets (e.g. f
Hi, Maciej-
Thanks for the feedback.
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 2/10/10 8:10 PM):
Some comments:
- I would like to suggest the name "Web Messaging" for the postMessage /
MessageChannel deliverable.
Done.
- I think the "Other Specifications" section should be clear on the
right process
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> And I think the answer is "yes". Any time someone talks about an
> optional web feature I get nervous. Can you give any examples of
> successful optional web features that exist today?
>
>
I'd suggest Javascript and Images, but you've re
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sooo totally for that. I want nothing more than to have more
>>> engagement and input from you gu
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10
On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
I'm sooo totally for that. I want nothing more than to have
more
engagement and input from you guys. Our URI spec is in last
call and so
is
the access request spec. The specs ar
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Drew Wilson
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> One of the suggestions made previ
On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
As you know, we will be up for rechartering on 30 June 2010.
However, we have a few new deliverables, and we've been specifically
advised that though they are arguably in scope, it would be better
transparency if e.g. postMessa
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> I'm sooo totally for that. I want nothing more than to have more
> engagement and input from you guys. Our URI spec is in last call and so
> is
> the access request spec. The specs are really small. Please find a few
Aryeh Gregor wrote on 2/10/2010 3:21 PM:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
>> Another threat is an attacker crafting a malicious payload in the Host
>> header, hoping that it gets logged then viewed via a web browser.
>
> That's just straight XSS.
I left it open-ended as I do
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think a better way to go would be to support a restricted subset of
>>> HTML, and then consider how the U
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
>
>
>> I think a better way to go would be to support a restricted subset of
>> HTML, and then consider how the UA should extract text for a plaintext-only
>> notification framework
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the suggestions made previously on this thread was to coalesce
>>> createNotification() and createHTMLNo
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> A sever can generally determine the domain name of the host it is running on
> from the operating system, if it wants to run with zero configuration. That
> is apparently what Apache does:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/mod/core.ht
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
>> One of the suggestions made previously on this thread was to coalesce
>> createNotification() and createHTMLNotification() into a single API with an
>> optional HTML parameter - t
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> One of the suggestions made previously on this thread was to coalesce
> createNotification() and createHTMLNotification() into a single API with an
> optional HTML parameter - this would allow UAs on systems with
> Growl/NotifyOSD to ignore t
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> We ran into this issue when mapping our own browser notifications to
> platform notification APIs. For ambient notifications, you can't rely on the
> user being able to click on the notification, because the notification might
> time out
We ran into this issue when mapping our own browser notifications to
platform notification APIs. For ambient notifications, you can't rely on the
user being able to click on the notification, because the notification might
time out and disappear on its own before the user has had a chance to react,
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 20:54, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
> > Following up on breaking out createHTMLNotification() and
> createNotification() vs combining them into one large API - I believe the
> intent is that a given user agent may not support all
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 20:54, Drew Wilson wrote:
>
> > Following up on breaking out createHTMLNotification() and
> createNotification() vs combining them into one large API - I believe the
> intent is that a given user agent may not support all
Art,
My regrets, but due to conflicts I will be unable to attend this VC, or next
week's (assuming one is scheduled).
S
On 10 Feb 2010, at 13:29, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Below is the draft agenda for the 11 February Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
>
> Inputs and discussion before the VC on all
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:49:18 +0100, Julian Reschke
wrote:
Remind me: what's the purpose of the W3C working on an XHR spec if even
well-documented bugs like this do not get fixed by implementers?
That it is clear this is in fact a bug and needs to be fixed. (I believe
we fixed it actually,
Following up to an email from Feb 2009:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Following up to a mail from May 2008:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Sunava Dutta wrote:
...
At this point, I'm not sure why we're bothering with XHR1 at all. It is
*not* what the current implementations do anyway.
[Sunava Dutta] I'm sorr
Dear Mr. Barstow,
As indicated in the mails about MPEG-U, I would like to request that the WG
discusses the MPEG liaison regarding widgets. Could you add it to the agenda ?
Best Regards,
Cyril Concolato
Le 10/02/2010 14:29, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Below is the draft agenda for the 11 Februa
Apologies in advance for this week and next.
Thanks,
David.
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
[mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: 10 February 2010 13:30
To: public-webapps
Subject: [widgets] Draft Agenda for 11 February 2010 voic
Below is the draft agenda for the 11 February Widgets Voice
Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please address Open and Raised Issues and Open Actions
before the meetin
Last week the XML Security WG published LCWDs of two specs the Widget
Digital Signature CR [Widget-DigSig] references:
XML Signature Properties
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmldsig-properties-20100204/
XML Signature Syntax and Processing Version 1.1
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xmldsig
On Feb 3, 2010, at 20:54, Drew Wilson wrote:
> Following up on breaking out createHTMLNotification() and
> createNotification() vs combining them into one large API - I believe the
> intent is that a given user agent may not support all types of notifications
> (for example, a mobile phone appl
Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 2/9/2010 4:13 AM:
> HTTPbis should address this threat in the security considerations
> section, and should strongly consider making it a MUST-level
> requirement for servers to check that the Host header is a host they
> serve. If HTTP had that requirement and all serve
33 matches
Mail list logo