Yesterday Hixie closed several of the Web Sockets bugs mentioned in the
e-mail below and he updated others. I think this now provides a basis to
determine if we have consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation. As
such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation
of
WebApps has been asked to review the July 10 LCWD of WebAppSec's Content
Security Policy 1.0 spec http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-CSP-20120710/.
Individual WG members are encouraged to provide individual feedback
directly to the Web Perf WG. If you have comments, please send them to
the
On 2012-07-11 15:11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Yesterday Hixie closed several of the Web Sockets bugs mentioned in the
e-mail below and he updated others. I think this now provides a basis to
determine if we have consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation. As
such, this is a Call for Consensus
Art wrote:
As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate
Recommendation of Web Sockets.
Ship it! :)
Ted
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.comwrote:
Art wrote:
As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate
Recommendation of Web Sockets.
Ship it! :)
+1
Another thing to consider if we add DOMTransaction back in is that you now
need to specifiy what happens in more cases, e.g.:
-call transact on the same DOMTransaction twice
-call transact on a DOMTransaction then modify undo/redo listeners
These are solvable problems, but are just more
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
Another thing to consider if we add DOMTransaction back in is that you now
need to specifiy what happens in more cases, e.g.:
-call transact on the same DOMTransaction twice
-call transact on a DOMTransaction then modify
On 2012-07-11 20:25, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-11 15:44, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-11 15:11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Yesterday Hixie closed several of the Web Sockets bugs mentioned in the
e-mail below and he updated others. I think this now provides a basis to
determine if we have
Glenn:
On May 21, 2012, at 9:44 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Eric U er...@google.com wrote:
According to the latest editor's draft [1], a File object must always
return an accurate lastModifiedDate if at all possible.
On getting, if user agents can make this
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17746
Summary: Specify Blob snapshots more robustly
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Glenn,
On May 22, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@google.com wrote:
In my understanding WebKit's behavior is querying the metadata / reading the
content as lazy as possible, partly because the spec was/is ambiguous
(especially
On May 23, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
Just to make sure, I assume 'the underlying storage' includes memory.
Right. For simple Blobs without a mutable backing store, all of this
essentially optimizes
On May 30, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On your main question, I've had the same thought in the past--a url
property on Blob which simply creates a new auto-revoking blob URL. I didn't
bring it up since I'm not sure if creating a URL for a blob is actually
something you do so
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
Another thing to consider if we add DOMTransaction back in is that you
now need to specifiy what happens in more cases, e.g.:
-call transact on the
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
Another thing to consider if we add DOMTransaction back in is that you
now need
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
Another
Agreed.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
On May 23, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
Just to make sure, I assume 'the underlying storage' includes memory.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
We don't have this problem with the dictionary interface because we
don't store the
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
We don't
Arthur Barstow:
2. The patch [3] to remove the TreatNonCallableAsNull qualifier for some
attributes. If anyone considers this change as substantive, please speak
up. Cameron - what's your opinion on this?
[TreatNonCallableAsNull] attribute Function? should be equivalent to
attribute
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's draft, and
the diffs. ...
..and the diff was reversed; new version attached.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.comwrote:
I agree that making snapshotting clearer might be a good idea.
It is true that reading size and lastModifiedDate are synchronous, but
this seemed a small trade-off compared to data reads.
My instinct is that an
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com
wrote:
I agree that making snapshotting clearer might be a good idea.
It is true that reading size and lastModifiedDate are synchronous, but
this
On 2012-07-12 01:52, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
OK; the amount of work is ~45 minutes (and probably can be automated
for future publication cycles).
See attachments; an edited version of the current editor's draft, and
the diffs. ...
..and the diff was
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
My interest was to demonstrate the problem, and to fix it for the pending
publication. In the process of it, I also discovered that one term used in
the spec is undefined.
Except as you can see in the more helpful
On 2012-07-12 07:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
My interest was to demonstrate the problem, and to fix it for the pending
publication. In the process of it, I also discovered that one term used in
the spec is undefined.
26 matches
Mail list logo
