Re: File API: reading a Blob
Le 10/07/2014 19:05, Arun Ranganathan a écrit : We agreed some time ago to not have partial data. I still think that's a big mistake. Even if the Streams API will solve this, this should be corrected in the File API. Unless I am misusing the API, you can not even increment a Blob, you have to create a new one each time, this should be corrected too. Example: var myfile=new Blob(); //chunks are coming in myfile=new Blob([myfile,chunk],...) //mylink A tag mylink.href=URL.createObjectURL(myfile) click on mylink -- does not work Expected behavior: the file (a video for example) should play as it is incremented. This is inconsistent with the standard files behavior (see [1] for example), this example should work without having to use the Media Source Extensions API. Regards Aymeric [1] https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live -- Peersm : http://www.peersm.com node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Re: [imports] credentials flag bits need to be updated to current fetch terminology
That's right. Thanks for the catch! Fixed: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/90da4809a207916486bc7af83a568f3762e780a0 On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: In http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/imports/#fetching-import the spec says: Fetch a resource from LOCATION with request's origin set to the origin of the master document, the mode to CORS and the omit credentials mode to CORS. There is no omit credentials mode in the current Fetch draft, and the mode that _is_ there, credentials mode, doesn't have CORS as a value. Presumably this is asking for same-origin? -Boris -- morrita
[Bug 26365] New: [Shadow]: Need an evquivalent definition of 'in a Document' for shadow trees
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26365 Bug ID: 26365 Summary: [Shadow]: Need an evquivalent definition of 'in a Document' for shadow trees Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Component Model Assignee: dglaz...@chromium.org Reporter: hay...@chromium.org QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzi...@w3.org CC: m...@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org Blocks: 14978 The context is: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=393350 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=394327 According to the current definition of a 'in a Document' [1], some important features, such as scripting, should not work in shadow trees as per the spec. [1]: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/infrastructure.html#in-a-document Because I am afraid that it's not a good idea to change the definition of 'in a Document', we need a better terminology for alternative of 'in a Document', such as 'in a Document or in a shadow tree', and should fix the relevant specs by using that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
