On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I
will proceed with a request
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Anyway, my point was just that Philippe's statement that an editor's
draft has no special status is false, and I stand by this:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@extjs.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On
that, it seems to mean native where it says
transparent.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
*Sencha*
Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect
@jarrednicholls
http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText +
the new json responseType. Currently it is written that responseText
should throw an exception if the responseType is not or text. I would
argue that responseText should also return the plain text when the type is
json.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com
wrote:
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText
+
the new json responseType. Currently it is written
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com
wrote:
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 06:10:26 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com
wrote:
For legacy reasons, responseText and responseXML continue to work
together despite the responseType that is set.
This is false
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText +
the new json responseType. Currently it is written that responseText
should throw an exception if the responseType is not or text. I would
argue that responseText should also return the plain text when the type is
json.
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText +
the new json responseType. Currently it is written that responseText
should throw an exception if the responseType is not or text. I would
argue that responseText should also return the plain text when the type is
json.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:44:58 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com
wrote:
I understand that's how you spec'ed it, but it's not how it's implemented
in IE nor WebKit for legacy purposes - which is what I meant
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com
wrote:
A good compromise would be to only throw it away (and thus restrict
responseText access) upon the first successful parse when accessing
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/12/11 8:12 AM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
I started an initiative to bring XHR in WebKit up-to-spec (see
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=54162https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54162)
and got a lot
+1 though it won't likely go away from implementations as easily.
On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Seems quite reasonable to me. We've got data URL strings for people who need
inefficiency (or portable strings).
On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Adrian
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
At TPAC [1,2] I described our proposal for adding an isReusable flag to
createObjectURL. A common pattern we have seen is the need for a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:54:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
I agree we should remove it from spec!
I think we'd be fine with removing it from the Firefox implementation.
Same goes for Opera!
Jonas
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:21:34 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote:
Adrian: I'm willing to relax this. I suppose it *is* inconsistent to
insist on 36 chars when we don't insist on UUID. But I
Are any user agents other than IE8+ currently implementing or have
implemented XHR2 timeout?
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74802
I have a couple of things I wanted to question, which may or may not result
in clarification in the spec.
1. The spec says the timeout should fire after
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.comwrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
1. The spec says the timeout should fire after the specified number of
milliseconds has elapsed since the start of the request. I presume
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
mailto:ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls
jar
, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.orgwrote:
1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform. To
achieve the same results as a native dataTimeout, your snippet would need
to be amended to maintain the time of the start of the request and
calculate the difference between
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote:
On 12/21/2011 08:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.**fi olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.orgwrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote:
Chrome sends:
Access-Control-Request-Headers:Origin, Content-Type, Accept
Is that just wrong?
The spec clearly says: author request headers: A list of headers set by
authors for the request. Empty, unless
The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that
Allow-Access-Request-Method should be sent, always. However in WebKit and
Firefox I'm observing this header only being sent when there are author
request headers being sent in Allow-Access-Request-Headers. Is the spec
not clear
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/21/11 11:04 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that
Allow-Access-Request-Method should be sent, always.
There is no such thing. What header did you actually
I'll try this again...
The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that
Access-Control-Request-Method should be sent, always. However in WebKit
and Firefox I'm observing this header only being sent when there are
author request headers being sent in
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/21/11 11:28 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
I'll try this again...
The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that
Access-Control-Request-Method should be sent, always. However in WebKit
would
also make the request non-simple, wouldn't they?
--
*Sencha*
Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect
@jarrednicholls
http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
But, if the browser does not support UTF-32, then the table in step (4) of
[1] is supposed to apply, which would interpret the initial two bytes FF
FE
as UTF-16LE according to the current language of [1], and further,
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Please be careful with quote markers; you quoted text written by me as
written by Glenn Adams.
Sorry, copying from the archives into Gmail is a pain.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 1/6/12 12:13 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
WebKit is used in many walled garden environments, so we consider these
scenarios, but as a secondary goal to our primary goal of being a
standards compliant browser engine
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/2012 10:28 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
This is an editor's draft of a spec, it's not a recommendation, so it's
hardly a violation of anything.
With this kind of attitude, frankly, you shouldn't be implementing a spec
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Long experience shows that people who say things like I'm going to code
against the Rec
instead of the draft, because the Rec is more stable
I know that's a common error, but I never said I was going against a Rec.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Jarred Nicholls wrote:
This is an editor's draft of a spec, it's not a recommendation, so it's
hardly a violation of anything. This is a 2-way street, and often times
it's the spec that needs to change
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote:
WebKit is used in many walled garden environments, so we consider these
scenarios, but as a secondary goal to our primary goal
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote:
Correction: rfc4627 doesn't describe BOM detection, it describes zero-byte
detection. My question remains, though: what exactly are you doing? Do you
do
Got some reports of broken C/C++ = JS compilers that relied on sync XHR to
load resources into an ArrayBuffer (simulating fopen), e.g. Mandreel and
Enscripten.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=716765
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72154#c43
Is there additional scoping of
2012/1/24 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com
The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
something like:
DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress).
This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the
status of DOM2 to a work in progress.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Whoops... that does not appear to be the same file. Appears that the
repo points to
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/c2f82425ba8d/spec/templates/index.html
FYI tip will point to the latest revision:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Gordon Williams g...@pur3.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
I recently posted on
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=72154https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72154
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Sounds great to me. The ports attribute is basically useless except in
this
one instance since ports are these days expose as part of structured
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/11/12 5:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Sending an ArrayBufferView would still have to use arraybuffer as
the type of data. I don't think it
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 10/8/12 5:45 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
I can't reproduce this (in Chrome 22).
Neither can I (Chrome Version 22.0.1229.79).
--tobie
Third and final confirmation; I cannot reproduce this w/ 22 or 23 beta.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.comwrote:
Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl skreiv Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:13:00
+0200
it was once stated that allowing full control would be a security risk.
I don't think this argument has really been substantiated for
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Alex Russell
slightly...@google.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'slightly...@google.com');
wrote:
Comments inline. Adding some folks from the IDB team at Google to the
thread as well as public-webapps.
(I
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comwrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com
wrote:
I don't
51 matches
Mail list logo
