Ian Hickson wrote on 5/24/2010 7:55 PM:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010, Bil Corry wrote:
>> Adam Barth wrote on 7/16/2009 10:38 AM:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
I think you mean everything will NOT be privacy-sensitive except non-XHR
GETs.
>>>
>>> I don't think we've qu
Hi, Folks-
Sorry to jump in on this thread so late; I've been busy and traveling.
As W3C Team Contact for this group, I strongly agree with Ian here
regarding the tone of some of the responses. Technical comments on this
list should be treated with the respect they are due. If you feel
some
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Bil Corry wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote on 7/16/2009 10:38 AM:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
> >> I think you mean everything will NOT be privacy-sensitive except non-XHR
> >> GETs.
> >
> > I don't think we've quite settled on exactly what will be privacy
On 4/20/2010 11:46 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
The spec is unspecified as to what we should do when a database is opened with
a different description than it was previously opened. I'd assume we'd want to
update the description.
Does anybody else have thoughts on what the right behavior s
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> As for the keyPath issue. The way the spec stands now (where I think
> it intends not to allow full expressions), I don't think it really
> depends on Javascript. It does depend on the language having some way
> to represent structured data.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:42 PM, wrote:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9793
>>
>> Summary: Allow dates and floating point numbers in keys
>> Product: WebAppsWG
>> Version: unspecified
>>
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>> or to use something like
>>
>> put(record, {forbidOverwrite: true}); // don't overwrite
>> put(record, {onlyOverwrite: true}); // must overwrite/update
>> put(record, {}); or put(record); // can do either
>>
>> or some such.
>>
>> However ultimat
Adam Barth wrote on 7/16/2009 10:38 AM:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
>> I think you mean everything will NOT be privacy-sensitive except non-XHR
>> GETs.
>
> I don't think we've quite settled on exactly what will be privacy
> sensitive. It's most likely that POSTs and XHR
On May 24, 2010, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> > Even though no one is currently considering implementing this outside of
> > JavaScript land and even though it'll limit us s
In IE, we only support Access-Control-Allow-Origin and combining with other
values (albeit optional ones) that we don't support might be misleading. It
also introduces some additional parsing that changes the behaviour from a
simple comparison to a more complex parse and then compare.
We wouldn
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> > Even though no one is currently considering implementing this outside of
> JavaScript land and even though it'll limit us some and making speccing
> harder, I think it'd be a mista
11 matches
Mail list logo
