Hi WebApps!
Apologies in advance for a long email. This is a complex subject and I
wanted to present a coherent proposal. Please don't be shy about
starting separate threads when providing feedback.
There has been a lot of debating about fixing appcache. Last year
mozilla got a few people
On 03/26/2013 08:02 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Another feature that we are proposing is to drop the current
manifest format and instead use a JSON based one. The most simple
reason for this is that we noticed that the information we need to
express quickly became complex enough that using a
Hi,
The current clipboard API specification mentions security risks of copy paste
but doesn't seem to explicitly mention methods by which user agents deal with
such security risks.
In particular, WebKit has been stripping script element from the pasted content
but this may have some side
Hello all,
What about something like Web Imports w/ rel=import . Basically it's a means
to import a building block/component.
I think on the mailing list there was the suggestion of package. Seems
reasonable too. Others that are in the same vein with equally generic issues
include block
One feature I'd like to see is respect for compression headers. I've got an
app which results in a 30Mb app cache, but it's only 8Mb over the wire due
to GZIP compression. I'd much prefer the appcache to see that the content
was served compressed, cache it compressed, and serve it to the browser
On 26 March 2013 07:02, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
{
expiration: 300,
cache: [index.html, index.js, index.css]
}
If the user navigates to index.html The following happens:
If the user is online and we haven't checked for update for the
appcache in the last 5 minutes (300
* Jonas Sicking wrote:
There has been a lot of debating about fixing appcache. Last year
mozilla got a few people together mostly with the goal of
understanding what the actual problems were. The notes from that
meeting are available at [1].
(I take it the fixing-appcache mailing list has since
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
(I take it the fixing-appcache mailing list has since been closed in
http://www.w3.org/community/fixing-appcache/ favour of discussion here.)
Yes, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fixing-appcache/2013Feb/0005.html
Reminder: April 5 is the deadline to register for WebApps' April 25-26
f2f meeting:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42538/webapps-april-2013/
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/April2013Meeting
Yves, PLH - please confirm if a phone conference bridge will be
available for remote participants.
On Mar 25, 2013 3:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Hello folks!
It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the Web
Components as the name for the link rel=component spec (cc'd some
of the feedbackers).
So... these malcontents are suggesting that Web Components
link rel=component should be called something more specific, having to do
with enabling modularity and facilitating component dependency
management that it actually does.
Component import or include. Or even component link, using not only link
type, but also the word link itself :-)
LT
Hey all,
I've been playing with web components and custom elements for a bit,
blogging about my understanding of it at
http://pomax.nihongoresources.com/index.php?entry=1364168314 and
writing a demo for the Mozilla webmaker dev group to see what we can
do with them, which is hosted at
Hi Tantek, Anne,
It appears the Fullscreen spec of WebApps and CSS WG [1] hasn't changed
since it was published last July. What is your plan for that spec
vis-à-vis these two WGs (it's a joint deliverable)?
-Thanks, ArtB
[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Hi Art,
I suppose it makes sense to update the W3C copy of the spec once it's
ready to go to last call. Until then, I encourage everyone to use to
the WHATWG living standard:
http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/
Thanks,
Tantek
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Arthur Barstow
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Tantek Çelik tan...@cs.stanford.edu wrote:
I suppose it makes sense to update the W3C copy of the spec once it's
ready to go to last call. Until then, I encourage everyone to use to
the WHATWG living standard:
http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/
FWIW, I have
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why we restrict blob URLs to the same
origin as the script that created them? In effect they are pretty much
like capability URLs (containing an unguessable token). So if someone
decides to share one, that should be okay I think. This would be
useful in the
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Tantek Çelik tan...@cs.stanford.edu wrote:
I suppose it makes sense to update the W3C copy of the spec once it's
ready to go to last call. Until then, I encourage everyone to use to
the
I like the idea of package seems all encompassing which captures the
requirements nicely. That or perhaps resource, but then resource seems
singular.
Or perhaps component-package so it is obvious that it's tied to web
components?
-Ryan
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov
Fwiw, my main concern is that for my team and for lots of other people I
communicate with, 'component' is basically synonymous with 'custom
element'. In that context, 'component' referring to
chunk-of-web-resources-loaded-via-link is problematic, even if it's not
wrong, per se.
We never
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Jake Archibald jaffathec...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 March 2013 07:02, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
{
expiration: 300,
cache: [index.html, index.js, index.css]
}
If the user navigates to index.html The following happens:
If the user is online
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:48 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On 03/26/2013 08:02 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Another feature that we are proposing is to drop the current
manifest format and instead use a JSON based one. The most simple
reason for this is that we noticed that the
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why we restrict blob URLs to the same
origin as the script that created them? In effect they are pretty much
like capability URLs (containing an unguessable token). So if someone
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think the original concern was that implementations might not be
able to reliably generate unguessable URLs. Potentially that's
something that we could require though.
Being able to generate a securely-random token
This is a lot to digest, but I know the developer community will greatly
appreciate the work that has gone into this—thank you.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
(snip)
First we need a way to get at AppCache objects:
No mention of installAppCache,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a lot to digest, but I know the developer community will greatly
appreciate the work that has gone into this—thank you.
Yeah, I hope this is possible to consume despite its length. I'll
create a shorter writeup
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is a lot to digest, but I know the developer community will greatly
appreciate the work that has gone into this—thank you.
Yeah, I hope
This is a tricky problem indeed.
The current appcache actually has the behavior that you're advocating,
but that's something that a lot of developers has complained about. In
fact, that's the second biggest complaint that I've heard only
trailing the confusing master entries behavior.
I
'Component Include'
'Component Include' describes what the markup is doing, and I like that a
lot. The syntax is similar to including a stylesheet or a script and so
this name should be evocative enough for even a novice to understand what
is implied by it.
- Angelina
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at
Forgive me if I'm perseverating, but do you imagine 'component' that is
included to be generic HTML content, and maybe some scripts or some custom
elements?
I'm curious what is it you envision when you say 'component', to test my
previous assertion about this word.
Scott
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013
29 matches
Mail list logo
