Re: Overlap between StreamReader and FileReader

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote: >> What I have in my mind is like this: >> >> if (this.readyState == this.LOADING) { >> stream = xhr.response; >> // XHR has already written some data x0 to stream >> stream.r

Re: [webappsec + webapps] CORS to PR plans

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Brad Hill wrote: > 1. Changed "Fetch" references. The CR document referenced the WHATWG Fetch > spec in a number of places. This was problematic due to the maturity / > stability requirements of the W3C for document advancement, and I feel also > inappropriate, a

Re: File constructor

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > I'd asked about using the FormData class for "x-www-form-urlencoded" > requests via XHR. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1143 That's URLQuery. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: File constructor

On 7/16/2013 5:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: So exposing FormData's contents came up again. Can you send me a pointer to that discussion, so I can plug into it? My bad: https://w

[webappsec + webapps] CORS to PR plans

WebAppSec and WebApps WGs, CORS advanced to Candidate Recommendation this January, and I believe it is time we consider advancing it to Proposed Recommendation. In the absence of an editor, I have been collecting bug reports sent to the public-webappsec list, and now have a proposed draft incorp

Re: Polished FileSystem API proposal

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Eric U wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: >>> Glad to see this proposal has a new draft. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Executive Summ

CfC: publish WD of Push API; deadline July 23

The Push API Editors would like to publish a new WD of the Push API spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following ED as the basis: Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) d

Re: Polished FileSystem API proposal

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Eric U wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eric U wrote: > What's the purpose of DestinationDict? It seems redundant. There's basically three potential ways to specify a copy/move desti

Re: File constructor

On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: >> On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> So exposing FormData's contents came up again. >> >> Can you send me a pointer to that discussion, so I can plug into it?

Re: Polished FileSystem API proposal

> Having the full path within the filesystem removes some of the > security benefit of not allowing "..", doesn't it? > There's no problem if it's just an implementation detail. > Conversely, is the > path useful if you can't use it to manipulate anything above the > current dir in the tree? It's

Re: File constructor

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> So exposing FormData's contents came up again. > > Can you send me a pointer to that discussion, so I can plug into it? My bad: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22680

Re: Polished FileSystem API proposal

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Kinuko Yasuda wrote: > Glad to see this proposal has a new draft. > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> Executive Summary (aka TL;DR): >> Below is the mozilla proposal for a simplified filesystem API. It >> contains two new abstractions,