Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote: >> >> Hi, Arun, >> >> I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec >> says >> that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with >> moz-filedata:". Since the UR

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Jian Li
I got what you mean. Thanks for clarifying it. Do you plan to add the origin encoding into the spec? How about using more generic scheme name "blobdata:"? Jian On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote: > >> Hi, Arun, >> >> I have one question

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Arun Ranganathan
On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote: Hi, Arun, I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec says that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with moz-filedata:". Since the URL is now part of the Blob and it could be used to refer to both file data blo

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: > Arun: > > In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone > among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob.  Is > that just an oversight, or is that an intentional restriction? Having readAsDataURL take a Fi

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Jian Li
Hi, Arun, I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec says that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with moz-filedata:". Since the URL is now part of the Blob and it could be used to refer to both file data blob and binary data blob, should we co

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Eric Uhrhane
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > On 6/2/10 3:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: >> >> Sure, why not?  Why would this be limited to File objects? >> >> A File is supposed to refer to an actual file on the local hard drive. >>  A Blob is a big bunch of data that you might want to do

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Jian Li
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > > On 6/2/10 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: > >> > >> Arun: > >> > >> In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone > >> among the readAs* methods, still takes a File

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Arun Ranganathan
On 6/2/10 3:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: Sure, why not? Why would this be limited to File objects? A File is supposed to refer to an actual file on the local hard drive. A Blob is a big bunch of data that you might want to do something with. There's nothing special about a File when it comes t

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Eric Uhrhane
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > On 6/2/10 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: >> >> Arun: >> >> In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone >> among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob.  Is >> that just an oversight, or is that an int

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Arun Ranganathan
On 6/2/10 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: Arun: In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob. Is that just an oversight, or is that an intentional restriction? That's intentional; readAsDataURL was cited as

Re: Updates to File API

2010-06-02 Thread Eric Uhrhane
Arun: In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob. Is that just an oversight, or is that an intentional restriction? Eric On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > Greetings WebApps WG,

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
Makes sense to me. (Though I'm still not convinced of its usefulness). / Jonas 2010/6/2 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) : > Also, for the sake of keeping things together, when we move this over we > should probably move FileSystem over as well. > -Ian > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread イアンフェッティ
Also, for the sake of keeping things together, when we move this over we should probably move FileSystem over as well. -Ian On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > I'm reaching out to some W3C team contacts to figure out logistics. > > -Ian > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:02

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread イアンフェッティ
I'm reaching out to some W3C team contacts to figure out logistics. -Ian On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor > holds a certain amount of sway. I'd imagine that it would get a lot > more review and attention fr

Re: XMLHttpRequest Priority Proposal

2010-06-02 Thread João Eiras
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:00:56 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:13:46 +0900, Mike Belshe wrote: // Set the load priority for this request. void setPriority(unsigned short priority); Any reason this is not an attribute named priority? Other than that I wonder if we

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor holds a certain amount of sway. I'd imagine that it would get a lot more review and attention from browser companies on WebApps. Apple isn't on DAP at all, and everyone from mozilla that works on related APIs are not on the DAP list

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread イアンフェッティ
I whole-heartedly agree, and have said as much in the past, both on public MLs and to various W3C team contacts. -Ian On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps > would make much more sense... > > / Jonas > > 2010/6/

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps would make much more sense... / Jonas 2010/6/2 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) : > http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/ > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Cristiano Sumariva > wrote: >> >> I have been reading the specification on file sec

Re: XMLHttpRequest Priority Proposal

2010-06-02 Thread Mike Belshe
Finally cycling back on this. Based on feedback from Olli and Anne, I have revised the spec. Changes: * changed the setPriority() method to be an attribute "priority" * made priority be a string rather than a number * inserted the "NORMAL" priority as the default XHR priority Here is th

Re: HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread イアンフェッティ
http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/ On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Cristiano Sumariva wrote: > I have been reading the specification on file section. > I would like to ask why not propose that File interface allow a create > method to let user save data for his use? > > Resume: > > Interface F

[Bug 9832] New: keyPath is underspecified

2010-06-02 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9832 Summary: keyPath is underspecified Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component

Re: [IndexedDB] KeyPaths and missing properties.

2010-06-02 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> So you'd have to pass in the javascript expression as a string. This > >> certainly works but is more than a little ugly. It also complicates > >> the implementation a good bit since it now has to include a javascript > >> engine. Not a

[Bug 9698] Rename all instances of noOverwrite to overwite

2010-06-02 Thread bugzilla
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9698 Jeremy Orlow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [IndexedDB] [Bug 9562] New: Opening a database with a different description is underspecified

2010-06-02 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > 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 d

Re: comments

2010-06-02 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 5/28/10 2:15 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: Hi Jim, your comments reach us right after the WG decided to take the specification to CR, but thankfully I was a bit slow with the editing so that we could take them into account :) On Ma

[widgets] Draft agenda for 3 June 2010 voice conf

2010-06-02 Thread Arthur Barstow
Below is the draft agenda for the June 3 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://ww

HTML5 File

2010-06-02 Thread Cristiano Sumariva
I have been reading the specification on file section. I would like to ask why not propose that File interface allow a create method to let user save data for his use? Resume: Interface File extends Blob { attribute unsigned long long currentPosition; readonly attribute signed long long d

Re: Automatic translation/validation of WebIDL documents

2010-06-02 Thread Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Le mercredi 02 juin 2010 à 13:40 +0200, Florian Stegmaier a écrit : > My overall question is, if you have any experience with WebIDL parser, > or perhaps could point me to a project, which is most up-to-date to > the current version of the WebIDL specification? I have also tried to > validate

Re: Reminder: Seeking comments on LCWDs of Server-events, Web Storage, Web Workers; deadline 30-June-2010

2010-06-02 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Hixie - would you please provide a short status and plan for these docs? > > 1. Server-Sent Events >http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/ > > 2. Web Storage >http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/ > > 3. Web Workers >

Automatic translation/validation of WebIDL documents

2010-06-02 Thread Florian Stegmaier
Dear Doug, all, i am participating the W3C Media Annotations Working Group [1] and co- edit the API for Resource 1.0 document [2]. Since we are going to LC soon, we want to initiate implementing the API specified. The main intention is, that we translate the WebIDL specification of the API

Reminder: Seeking comments on LCWDs of Server-events, Web Storage, Web Workers; deadline 30-June-2010

2010-06-02 Thread Arthur Barstow
Hixie - would you please provide a short status and plan for these docs? -Thanks, Art Barstow Original Message Subject: Seeking comments on LCWDs of Server-events, Web Storage, Web Workers; deadline 30-June-2010 Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:37:20 +0100 From: Arthur Barstow