[Bug 15134] New: Please explain what the proper behavior of getSelection on a display:none iframe is

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15134 Summary: Please explain what the proper behavior of getSelection on a display:none iframe is Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All

[Bug 15104] In reply to: Following HTTP procedures here could introduce serious security problems in a Web browser context. For example, consider a host with a WebSocket s

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15104 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [XHR] chunked requests

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:33:08 +0100, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> Same-origin requests should be OK because the JS would have access >>> to the relevant sensitive data in any case. >> >> O

Web IDL sequence and item() method

Hi Cameron, Does the ECMAScript binding for the IDL sequence type imply the existence of an item() method as a element accessor, where an element is a property whose property name is an array index? If so, then could describe how it is implied? The reason I ask is because I'm wondering about comp

Re: [XHR] chunked requests

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:33:08 +0100, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren >> wrote: >>> Are you saying that if responseType is set to "stream" and the server >>> only supports TLS 1.0 the connection sh

Re: [XHR] chunked requests

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:33:08 +0100, Eric Rescorla wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Are you saying that if responseType is set to "stream" and the server only supports TLS 1.0 the connection should fail, but if it is greater than that it is okay? I'm not sur

Re: [XHR] chunked requests

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:13:50 +0100, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >>> >>> Whatever spec we end up going with should note in its security >>> consideration that the user agent must implement

[Bug 15129] Vxvzvxvjbcb vs avatars Bdhzgzgagdffgx Vvgbv bb Gvvcn. Bcc cf hghvhhcygfg fscsssxaxsszzxcxs Gets es Gvvfvbvfamtsf

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15129 Art Barstow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 15129] New: Vxvzvxvjbcb vs avatars Bdhzgzgagdffgx Vvgbv bb Gvvcn. Bcc cf hghvhhcygfg fscsssxaxsszzxcxs Gets es Gvvfvbvfamtsf

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15129 Summary: Vxvzvxvjbcb vs avatars Bdhzgzgagdffgx Vvgbv bb Gvvcn. Bcc cf hghvhhcygfg fscsssxaxsszzxcxs Gets es Gvvfvbvfamtsf Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified

Re: [XHR] chunked requests

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:16:37 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote: I think Microsoft's stream proposal would address this use case. So that would be: http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/streamsapi/ How does that relate to the various APIs for streaming media? (I added roc and Feras Moussa.)

Re: [XHR] chunked requests

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:13:50 +0100, Eric Rescorla wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Adam Barth wrote: Whatever spec we end up going with should note in its security consideration that the user agent must implement TLS 1.2 or greater to avoid this attack. I believe it's actually TLS 1.1,

[Bug 15127] Please don't use section numbers as these tend to change rapidly and make your feedback harder to understand.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15127 Michael[tm] Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|