Re: [websockets] What needs to be done before the spec is LC ready?

2011-04-05 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: [websockets] What needs to be done before the spec is LC ready?

2011-04-05 Thread Adam Barth
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:

Re: [websockets] What needs to be done before the spec is LC ready?

2011-04-05 Thread Ian Hickson
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:

RE: [websockets] What needs to be done before the spec is LC ready?

2011-04-05 Thread Adrian Bateman
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

RE: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

2011-04-05 Thread Pablo Castro
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

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

2011-04-05 Thread Joran Greef
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

Re: RfC: WebApps Testing Process

2011-04-05 Thread Garrett Smith
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