On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Aug 23, 2013 12:30 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org
wrote:
Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,
On 8/19/13 7:44 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
OK, I just finished making my way through the public-script-coord
thread [I'm not on that list, but someone pointed me to it]. I have
no official objections to you editing a spec based on Jonas's
proposal, but I do have a couple
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16189
Bug 16189 depends on bug 16185, which changed state.
Bug 16185 Summary: Serialization of family-name don't match browsers
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16185
What|Removed |Added
On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,
2) Is any vendor other than Mozilla actually interested in this
proposal? When it was brought up on public-webapps, and at the
WebApps F2F, it dropped with a resounding thud.
Given the standardization
resending to the right address.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Eric, Arun, Jonas, All,
On 8/19/13 7:44 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
OK, I just finished making my way through the public-script-coord
thread [I'm not on that list, but someone pointed
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Kinuko Yasuda kin...@chromium.org wrote:
Going back to the use case 2, let me try to explain a sample scenario:
Let's say website A has stored some data in temporary storage. The amount of
data was less than the per-site quota at the time (otherwise the write
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23072
Bug ID: 23072
Summary: Interaction with DeviceOrientation/Motion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I think you might have misunderstood my initial comment.
I agree that the current partial data solution is not good. I think we
should remove it.
I'd really like
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Thanks, that explains the concern.
However the proposed solution doesn't seem to solve the problem
particularly well, for two reasons:
First off, an API which lets the website track how much data it is
storing, measured
