[IndexedDB] Interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations

The interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations is giving us trouble. I need to elaborate a little to explain the problem. You can perform operations in IndexedDB with or without an explicitly started transaction. When no transaction is present, you get an implici

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

ian, it seems to me that nobody objects to adding a isPersistent optional parameter to openDatabase{Sync}() in the WebSQLDatabases spec (default = false). can you please add it to the spec? if isPersistent = true and the UA doesn't support persistent storage, then i believe openDatabase{Sync}() sho

Re: [widgets] WARP default policy

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> > If these were limited to Uniform Messages, how much of a need would >> > there >> > still be to disallow them? What would the remaining threats be? >> >> Would it allow reading res

Re: [widgets] WARP default policy

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > If these were limited to Uniform Messages, how much of a need would there > > still be to disallow them? What would the remaining threats be? > > Would it allow reading resources behind corporate firewalls using a > browser running on a com

Re: [widgets] WARP default policy

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Scott Wilson > wrote: >> >> I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this >> stood out: >> In the default policy, a user agent must deny access to network >> resources external to

Re: [widgets] WARP default policy

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Scott Wilson < scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this > stood out: > > In the default policy, a user > agent > *must* deny access

[widgets] WARP default policy

I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this stood out: In the default policy, a user agent must deny access to network resources external to the widget by default, whether this access is requested through APIs (e.g. XMLHttpRequest) or through markup (e.g. iframe,

[Bug 9653] New: How to handle nullable violations is not specified.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9653 Summary: How to handle nullable violations is not specified. Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Prio

Re: Client side JavaScript i18n API

Hi, Robin- Robin Berjon wrote (on 4/27/10 12:21 PM): On Apr 27, 2010, at 18:13 , Phillips, Addison wrote: A project to implement this could go quite fast, I think, but would require agreement by the major browser vendors and a place to do the work. We could do this at W3C, but I think ECMA sho

Re: [widgets] WARP testing

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Scott Wilson wrote: > Wookie has implemented WARP, so we can try out the tests as soon as they are > available. I'm seriously not getting the cycles to do this. Scott, any chance you could help us out? According to [1], there is only around 15 assertions... that r

Re: [widgets] Moving to DVCS platform Re: [admin] DVCS platform at W3C

On 4/05/10 3:16 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: On May 4, 2010, at 14:56 , Marcos Caceres wrote: right, so it would basically end up looking like: widgets/[specname] so: widgets/packaging/ widgets/updates/ widgets/interface/ widgets/digsig/ and so on... for non-widget stuff, I don't know. Maybe we

Re: [widgets] Applying Stylesheets to Resources

On May 4, 2010, at 9:35 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: This feels like a "wouldn't it be nice" kinda feature. I added a pointer to Doug's original email to the widget features list: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R -Art Barstow

Re: [widgets] Applying Stylesheets to Resources

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On May 4, 2010, at 14:42 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> Having a

Re: [widgets] Moving to DVCS platform Re: [admin] DVCS platform at W3C

On May 4, 2010, at 14:56 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > right, so it would basically end up looking like: > > widgets/[specname] > > so: > > widgets/packaging/ > widgets/updates/ > widgets/interface/ > widgets/digsig/ > > and so on... for non-widget stuff, I don't know. Maybe we need just a general

Re: [widgets] Applying Stylesheets to Resources

On May 4, 2010, at 14:42 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > Having a

Re: [widgets] Moving to DVCS platform Re: [admin] DVCS platform at W3C

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > With the WG's permission, I would like to move the widget specs to the >  DVCS platform. sounds good > Maybe we can put it on the agenda for discussion tomorrow.

Re: [widgets] Moving to DVCS platform Re: [admin] DVCS platform at W3C

On 4/05/10 2:39 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: On May 4, 2010, at 14:25 , Marcos Caceres wrote: With the WG's permission, I would like to move the widget specs to the DVCS platform. Maybe we can put it on the agenda for discussion tomorrow. +1 with the proviso that we put links from the old CVS ver

[widgets] Draft agenda for 6 May 2010 voice conf

Below is the draft agenda for the May 6 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/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting: http:/

Re: [widgets] Applying Stylesheets to Resources

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Boris- > > Boris Zbarsky wrote (on 2/11/10 12:04 PM): >> >> On 2/11/10 11:57 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: >>> >>> One odd part of the separation of content and presentation is that a >>> stylesheet is applied to a file by including a link to

Re: [widgets] Moving to DVCS platform Re: [admin] DVCS platform at W3C

On May 4, 2010, at 14:25 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > With the WG's permission, I would like to move the widget specs to the > DVCS platform. Maybe we can put it on the agenda for discussion > tomorrow. +1 with the proviso that we put links from the old CVS version to the new stuff so people don't k

Re: [widgets] Applying Stylesheets to Resources

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, folks- > > I've meant to mention this for a while (a couple years), and it's probably > too late, but I thought I'd drop it in for future consideration. > > One odd part of the separation of content and presentation is that a > stylesheet

[widgets] Moving to DVCS platform Re: [admin] DVCS platform at W3C

With the WG's permission, I would like to move the widget specs to the DVCS platform. Maybe we can put it on the agenda for discussion tomorrow. Kind regards, Marcos On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > FYI. > > From: Alexandre Bertails berta...@w3.org > Subject: DVCS platfo

Re: [widgets] API - openURL security considerations

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Marcos, > > first of all, kudos for thinking about security considerations for this > method.  I'm glad you're considering factors like interaction flooding and > tons of windows opening. Thanks > Reviewing the spec text: > http://www.

Re: [widgets] API - openURL security considerations

Hi Adam, On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > What about being about to link to file:// URLs?  You probably want to > ban that.  Also, have you considered what happens if you put a > JavaScript URL or a Data URL into openURL? I've added the following non-normative security conside

[widgets] W3C Widgets on Android (was:Zip vs GZip Tar)

On 4 May 2010, at 10:14, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Scott Wilson > wrote: >> On 30 Apr 2010, at 18:46, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: >> >> Marcos, Chaals, fair points. I can't honestly say that we are looking to >> implement this spec at this point, >>

Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

Hi Scott, On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Scott Wilson wrote: > On 30 Apr 2010, at 18:46, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > > Marcos, Chaals, fair points. I can't honestly say that we are looking to > implement this spec at this point, > > I saw a very nice W3C Widgets implementation on Android the