On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
What needs to be done before the WebSocket API is LC ready?
I'm currently waiting for a number of editorial changes to the protocol
specification to provide hooks for the API specification so that I can
update the API apecification to work with the
There's also potentially protocol changes that will cause use to need
to fix things at the API layer. For example, if the IETF introduces
redirects into the protocol, we'll likely need to account for them at
the API layer:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Adam Barth wrote:
There's also potentially protocol changes that will cause use to need to
fix things at the API layer. For example, if the IETF introduces
redirects into the protocol, we'll likely need to account for them at
the API layer:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi All,
What needs to be done before the WebSocket API is LC ready?
Bugzilla has three open bugs for this spec:
1. API for send/receive of binary data? Current IETF protocol drafts
have binary type. Consider typed arrays
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Keean Schupke
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:17 PM
Something like RelationalDB gives you the power of a relational-db with no
dependence on a specific implementation of SQL, so it would be compatible
On 06 Apr 2011, at 2:53 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
The goal of IndexedDB has always been to enable things like RelationalDB and
CouchDB to be built on top, while maintaining a reasonable level of
functionality for those that wanted to use it directly. I really like the
idea of thinking of
On 4/4/11, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/11, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
(setting followup to public-testinfra)
On 04/04/2011 01:45 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
I'd rather see the `format_value` function broken up. It makes
non-standard expectations of host