http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9769
Nikunj Mehta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9768
Nikunj Mehta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9563
Nikunj Mehta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
Sorry about the delay in response; I've been out of the office for the
past 10 days. [Also, sorry Bryan--I forgot to reply-all.]
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
wrote:
> I am not meaning to be unfair, perhaps the message is not coming through
> clearly enough.
>
> Th
I am also happy with this suggested approach.
- Maciej
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> SOLD to the bearded french dude!
>
> Seriously though, this sounds great.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> thanks a lot for this usef
On 6/16/10 12:59 PM, David Rogers wrote:
[DAVID] I was actually referring to:
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/privacy-reqs/
(As mentioned in previous correspondence, I think securing an API and
privacy can be decoupled, but both are very relevant topics).
I've read that document and think that m
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> On 6/14/10, James Salsman wrote:
>>
>>>... I [had been earlier] persuaded that the device element is
>>> unnecessary, given recent announcements for the input type=file
>>> accept="...;source=..." type specification proposed by Android
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Are further discussions of input type=file accept=... supposed to
> occur on the dap or webapps list?
That seems like it would be best discussed on the HTMLWG list as that
is the specification which has always (AFAIK) defined it.
/ Jonas
Hi Arun,
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com]
Sent: 16 June 2010 19:48
On 6/16/10 2:16 AM, David Rogers wrote:
>
>> The question of where you are represented and your ability to
>> participate cuts both ways - the same is true for us. I think if the
>>
Are further discussions of input type=file accept=... supposed to
occur on the dap or webapps list?
Hi David,
Thanks for your questions.
On 6/16/10 2:16 AM, David Rogers wrote:
The question of where you are represented and your ability to
participate cuts both ways - the same is true for us. I think if the
browser vendors want their products really to be seen as compatible
with
When you get to the cursor, the object already existed. This is the case where
the update occurs on an existing object and put means put because it already
exists.
On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
> I don't have an opinion about addOrModify but in the Firefox build I'm
> messi
I don't have an opinion about addOrModify but in the Firefox build I'm
messing with the cursor has an update method that I find highly useful
and efficient.
-Mikeal
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 16, 20
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>> There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode does
>>> not exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you kno
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode does
>> not exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you know that the record
>> exists and hence don't need to specify t
On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode does not
exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you know that the record exists
and hence don't need to specify that option.
To be clear, you are saying that there are only
On May 10, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/7/2010 1:32 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Per the current spec [1], noOverwrite defaults to false for put
>> operations on an object store. Ben Turner and I have been
>> discus
SOLD to the bearded french dude!
Seriously though, this sounds great.
/ Jonas
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> thanks a lot for this useful and frank conversation. Based on this input and
> stuff I've been ruminating over, I'd like to propose the following
> arra
Hi All,
Earlier today, the DAP WG agreed [1] their two File API specs (File API:
Writer [File-Writer] and File API: Directories and System [File-D&S])
would move to the WebApps WG. WebApps will proceed with these specs as
chartered via the "File API" deliverable in its Charter [Charter].
Goi
All,
I think this touches on almost everything, including the File* topic
currently being discussed.. please, ask yourselves:
Why are why are developers building extensions to create client side
applications? Are they not still running in the browsers? why have they
been pushed outside of th
On 6/16/10 6:56 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
WDYT?
Robin - your proposal seems reasonable to me.
-Art Barstow
On 6/16/10 8:03 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Maciej mentioned on IRC that he would really like to see these defined
before he makes a decision. I drafted what I think we can all accept as
good criteria:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#crec
I.e. requiring at least two imple
Below is the draft agenda for the June 17 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://w
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:03:05 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
The Editor's Draft does not yet include CR exit criteria. I would expect
the criteria to be similar to our previous CRs i.e. require a thorough
test suite and at least two implementations that pass all tests. (We can
discuss the cri
Hi Robin,
It might be worth hanging on for Arun's response to my email this
morning before we get to a resolution on this.
Also on the proposed naming, the term 'Trusted' has a very specific
meaning and it could create ambiguities - i.e. we would not be defining
a "Trusted File System" Access. Th
Hi all,
thanks a lot for this useful and frank conversation. Based on this input and
stuff I've been ruminating over, I'd like to propose the following arrangement
(in detail, so bear with me for stating some parts that may be obvious).
• File/FileReader stays in WebApps. It defines all that yo
> The question of where you are represented and your ability to
> participate cuts both ways - the same is true for us. I think if the
> browser vendors want their products really to be seen as compatible
with
> the Web application space (as compared to just dynamic Web pages),
they
> will support
27 matches
Mail list logo