On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 10/20/11 7:18 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> No we don't. The fact that there's someone else who has a handle to
>>> the list and can mutate it underneath you
>>
>> There is no sane
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Lachlan Hunt
wrote:
> Not necessarily. It depends what exactly it means for a selector to
contain
> :scope for determining whether or not to enable the implied :scope
> behaviour. Consider:
>
> foo.find(":not(:scope)");
Ooh, this is an interesting case too. So
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Friday, September 02, 2011 3:33 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Hans Wennborg [mailto:hwennb...@google.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:33 AM
>> To: Israel Hilerio
>> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Ji
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Futomi Hatano wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm not a W3C member, can I send a mail to the list?
Absolutely! This is a public list intended for just that!
> I've tried to use Indexed database API using IE10 PP3 and Chrome 16 dev.
> I found a different behavior bet
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Currently IDBObjectStore.count/get/openCursor and
>> IDBIndex.count/get/openCursor/openKeyCursor all take a key or a KeyRange.
>> However IDBObjectStor
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> On 30/08/11 4:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Indeed! I think it's already been decided that all non-mutating
>> functions should be added to NodeLists and other list-like DOM
>> objects. I believe
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> On 24/10/11 11:51 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> I think we have three types of array-like objects:
>>
>> 1. Objects like the one returned from getElementsByTagName where
>> modifications to the ar
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> On 24/10/11 12:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Based on my testing, many methods wouldn't throw for zero-size
>> array-like objects. Similarly, methods like .push(), .unshift() and
>> .slice() wouldn
Hi everyone,
It was pointed out to me on twitter that BlobBuilder can be replaced
with simply making Blob constructable. I.e. the following code:
var bb = new BlobBuilder();
bb.append(blob1);
bb.append(blob2);
bb.append("some string");
bb.append(myArrayBuffer);
var b = bb.getBlob();
would become
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> In theory, a BlobBuilder could be backed by a file on disk, no? The
> advantage is that if you're building something very large, you don't
> necessarily need to be using all that memory. You can imagine a UA having
> Blobs be fully in-memory unt
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
> It's nice. Like Ojan said, I don't see this as mutually exlusive with
> BlobBuilder either. There's nother peice of data to associate with a blob...
> the content-type... that would need to be provided in the ctor.
Good point.
Which makes
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Eric U wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> It was pointed out to me on twitter that BlobBuilder can be replaced
>> with simply making Blob constructable. I.e. the following code:
>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Replying late here, but:
>
> On 29/09/11 12:03 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> From my understanding of the WebIDL spec, the idea is that
>> specifications like IndexedDB should throw exceptions which use the
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2011 9:14 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> On 17/10/11 7:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > I sort of like the short-cut since it seems like a very common case
>> > for web developers to w
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Eric U wrote:
>> The only things that this lacks that BlobBuilder has are the endings
>> parameter for '\n' conversion in text and the content type. The
>> varargs constructor makes it awkward to pass in fl
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Eric U wrote:
>> >> The only things th
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> Currently IDBObjectStore.count/get/openCursor and
>>> IDBIndex.count/get/openCurso
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 19:23, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On the topic of getting rid of BlobBuilder, do you have thoughts on losing
>>> the ability to back it by an on-disk file?
>>
>> I'm not sure I u
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Your guesses are all right in terms of existing jQuery but one:
> 'div': [1, 2, 3, 4]
> '': []
> '#3': [3]
> '> div': [1, 2, 3]
> '[foo=bar]': []
> '[id=1]': [1]
> ':first-child': [1, 4]
> '+ div': [5]
> '~ div': [5, 6]
Ah, yes, sounds good.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>> The new API is smaller and simpler. Less to implement and less for web
>> developers to understand. If it can meet all our use-cases without
>> significant performance problems, then i
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >
>> > While I was there it did occur to me that the fact that the .delete
&
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:35 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>>>On Monday, October 24, 2011 7:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2011 10:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Currently the spec is somewhat inconsistent in how it deals with having an
>> index on a property, and then inserting an object
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Based on the feedback from Jonas, Cameron, and Anne, we updated the exception
> and error model in the IndexedDB spec [1]. Now, we match the DOM Level 4
> events and error models.
>
> The IDBDatabaseException interface was replaced with
On Wednesday, October 26, 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:14:39 +0900, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
>>
>> b = new Blob([foo, bar], { contentType: "text/plain" });
>>
>> isn't too bad. The other properties that I could think of that we
On Wednesday, October 26, 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:14:39 +0900, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
>>
>> b = new Blob([foo, bar], { contentType: "text/plain" });
>>
>> isn't too bad. The other properties that I could think of that we
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:12:31 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The prime use of this value is actually to act like a content type header
>> when a URL created through createObjectURL(blob) is loaded.
>
> Do
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:35 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> >>On Tue, Oct
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> On W
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> I think the DOM4 spec should be clearer about the atomicity (or
> non-atomicity) of DocumentFragment insertion. I assume that when a
> DocumentFragment is inserted, scripts should never be able to observe the
> document in state where some
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:21:53 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> It's a completely useless function. It just implements the equality
>> operator. I believe most languages have a equality operator already.
>&g
Ok, so we're down to not having full agreement on the following selectors:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> e.findAll("body > :scope > div")
>
> 1, 2, 3, 4
>
>> e.findA
Hi guys,
Currently the spec contains the following sentence:
"Conforming user agents must automatically abort a transaction at the
end of the scope in which it was created, if an exception is
propagated to that scope."
This means that the following code:
setTimeout(function() {
doStuff();
t
shua Bell
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 5:06 PM
> To: Webapps WG
> Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Throwing when *creating* a transaction
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Currently the spec contains the following sentence:
>
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> So far as I can see, Section "3.1.3 Keys" doesn't seem to forbid circular
> references in keys which are Array objects, but this will obviously cause
> infinite loops in the comparison algorithm. This is in contrast to values,
> where the struct
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Eric U wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Make "loade
Yay! Thumbs up from me!
/ Jonas
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> During the October 31 meeting [1], there was agreement to publish a
> Candidate Recommendation of the WebSockets API and this is a Call for
> Consensus to do so:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
>
> T
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> It would be useful if there was a way to take a String of HTML and parse it
> into a document fragment. This should work even if the HTML string contains
> elements that are invalid in the "in body" insertion mode.
> Something like this code sho
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Israel Hilerio
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed
It would be really nice if we could move forward with this thread.
My preference is still to not do any HTML/XML specific processing when
.responseType is set to anything other than "" or "document". This
allows us to make encoding handling consistent for "text" and a
possible future incremental t
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> Also, the current spec leads to quite strange results if we end up
>> supporting more text-based formats directly in XHR. For example in
>> Gecko we've added experimental support for parsing into JSON. If we
>> added this to a future version
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Ryan Seddon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>
>> I don't really follow. Script won't execute until you append the fragment
>> to the DOM, at which point the fragment itself doesn't go in the DOM, just
>> it's children. So, I'm not really
Yes! Please file a bug on this. We really should be tracking these types of
things in bugs as we approach last call. We noticed tidy that .cmp still
returns reversed results for example.
/ Jonas
On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, Joshua Bell wrote:
> Should IDBIndex (and IDBIndexSync) expose a readon
Given that this type of sandbox would work very differently from the
iframe sandbox, I think reusing the same attribute name would be
confusing.
Additionally, what's the behavior if you remove the attribute? What if
you do elem.innerHTML += "foo" on the element after having removed the
sandbox? Or
On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Andrew Oakley
wrote:
> It seems fairly common to call overrideMimeType before open(), but
> should throw an InvalidStateError according to current XHR2 editors draft.
>
> If you search (Google) for overrideMimeType a significant number of
> first page results show c
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:30:32 -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Andrew Oakley
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems fairly common to call overrideMimeType before open(), bu
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> It would be useful if there was a way to take a String of HTML and parse it
>> into a document fragment. This should work even if the HTML string contains
>> elements that are invalid in
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Travis Leithead
wrote:
> This has been an interesting debate, but I'm still a little confused with the
> outcome (if any).
>
> Will someone summarize the current position on these issues:
>
> 1. Should "find()" and "findAll()" follow
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Travis Leithead
> wrote:
>> This has been an interesting debate, but I'm still a little confused with
>> the outcome (if any).
>>
>> Will someone summarize the curren
Hi All,
So, we've debated a lot the exact syntax for .find/.findAll. However I
intentionally requested that we split out the discussions about return
type for .findAll to a separate thread. So I'm starting that thread
here.
There are a few goals for the return'ed object that I've envisioned
based
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:32:36 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> And yes, this does create a lot of edge cases which needs to be
>> defined. But the goal should be to make sane calls sane, that seems
>>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:44:10 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> For all element names defined in SVG 1.1 (for now), make the parser
>> treat it just as it would have if it had parsed "...", except
>>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Unfortunately
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 1:05 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> So, we've debated a lot the exact syntax for .find/.findAll. However I
>> intentionally requested that we split out the discussions abo
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> However, if you want the object to be mutable and to act like a real array,
> then it has to have the array specialness. The specialness comes, not from
> the [[Class]] property but from its alternative definitions of
> [[DefineOwnPro
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, I think that either the immutable or mutable approach would work.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>> Right, but I'm saying: why create yet more "stuff" in the DOM?
>>
>> findAll will return a "NodeArray" while querySelectorAll and friends return
>> static and live NodeLists? No than
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>>>In section "4.7 Steps for extracting a key from a value using a key path"
>>>step #4 it states that:
>>>* If object does
On Sunday, November 13, 2011, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 3:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Good catch! This definitely needs to be specified in the spec.
>>
>> I have a weak preference for using 1. This has a smaller risk of
>> triggering edge ca
On Monday, November 14, 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:03:53 +0100, Olli Pettay
wrote:
>>
>> I think we should strongly encourage web devs to move away from
>> sync XHR (in Window context, not in Workers). It is bad for UI
>> responsiveness.
>>
>> Unfortunately sync XHR h
On Monday, November 14, 2011, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
> Yehuda Katz
> (ph) 718.877.1325
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> > On 11/13/11 6:10 AM, Al
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> What about setRequestHeader()?
>>
>> This one is trickier. I would be more concerned about compatibility
>> given that the function has been around forever and has always applied
>> only to the current request.
>>
>> Additionally, since
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>>On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>>>>In section "4.7 Step
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I don't think we should make up rules for where it makes sense to
>> insert DOM and where it doesn't. After all, we support .innerHTML on
>> all HT
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:55:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I think cross-origin should not work with sync. That is currently the
>> only synchronous communication mechanism cross origin. Without it a UA
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> I do however think that we should simply state that getting the index
>> values will use the normal method for looking up properties on JS
>> objects. This includes walking the prototype chain. Practically
>> speaking this only makes a differe
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 09:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:55:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking
>>> wrote:
>>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> >> I do however think that we should simply state that getting the index
>> >> values
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Jonas Sicking
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>&
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Hmm.. good point. Looking at the documentation for the built-in types,
>> there are unfortunately also a host of constant properties on implicit
>>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin wrote:
> It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
> each other a synchronous message.
Indeed. We can only allow child workers to block on parent workers.
Never the other way around.
I think in theory it would be possibl
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Levin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Levin wrote:
>> > It seems like this mechanism would deadlock a worker if two workers send
>>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2011 6:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday, October 07, 2011 4:35 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> >> On Fri
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> * Making XHR not support HTML parsing in the synchronous mode.
>
> In reference to the other thread about discouraging synchronous XHR
> (outside Workers), this change ended up being
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I landed support for HTML parsing in XHR in Gecko today. It has not
> yet propagated to the Nightly channel.
>
> Here's how it behaves:
>
> * Contrary to the spec, for response types other than "" and
> "document", character encoding determi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2011, at 18:31 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>> On 11/22/11 12:29 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> d - "//div[parent::*//a]";
>
> (d) can be done with the new subject indi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> On 11/22/11 12:57 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>>>
>>> The fewer properties that are exposed this way, the smaller the quirk
>>> is.
>>
>> I think the problem is that from web developers po
On Wednesday, November 23, 2011, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 01:08 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I really don't think that selectors can ever compete with the
>> expressiveness of XPath. Consider the following expression:
>>
>> //div[count(.//sp
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> Back in September, it was proposed to expand the charter of the WebEvents WG
> to include PointerLock (formerly known as MouseLock) and Gamepad APIs [1].
> This seemed like a logical home for them given that both of these APIs
> pertain to i
Same here.
On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Adam Barth wrote:
> Support.
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
>> Below, Darin proposes the Pointer Lock [PL] (formerly known as Mouse
Lock)
>> spec and the Gamepad [GP] spec be added to the Web Applications WG's
charter
>> and
On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> * For text/html responses for response type "" and "document", the
>>> charac
On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Lachlan Hunt
wrote:
> On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan
wrote:
>>>
>>> The alternative option (find / findAll / matches can accept explicit
>>> :scope, but will otherwise imply :scope) seems to be where all th
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> On 2011-11-27 21:29, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Here is what I sent to the list on Nov 10th. Though it didn't get archived
>> so maybe it didn't go through properly:
>> ...
>
> I'll revie
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> A while ago sicking proposed adding chunked support to XMLHttpRequest:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0741.html
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687087
>
> A use case I remember was downloa
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>>> Charles asked whether "chunked-text" was really needed (and whether we
>>> should have "chunked" which implies ArrayBuffer instead). N
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Charles a
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> Should the parameter used in IDBObjectStore.createIndex() and the property
> on IDBIndex be spelled "multientry" (as it is in the spec currently), or
> "multiEntry" (based on "multi-entry" as the correct English spelling)?
>
> Has any implement
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 11/30/11 6:04 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>
>> I don't worry about character sets at all. I treat the content as opaque.
>
>
> It doesn't sound like you're describing text pr
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>> > Should the parameter used
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> There are serious security implications for enabling CORS, even with
> session-less requests.
> It's going to be a very long opt-in process for file sharing services.
This is a very strong statement backed up by absolutely no information
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> There's a problem with REST-ful services, as exemplified by the JAX-RS
> standard, and CORS as drafted.
>
> A JAX-RS server names a resource, in part, via the content-type of a
> request. A POST with content-type of application/json names
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 12/1/11 3:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>>
>>> There are serious security implications for enabling CORS, even with
>>> session-
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>> There's a problem with REST-ful services, as exemplified by the JAX-RS
>>> st
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Jonas,
>
> Let me circle back to the top now and see if I can play this back.
>
> 1. Of course, when writing a server, it's up to me to implement access
> control decisions.
>
> 2. To protect a plethora of poorly-protected servers out there
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 12/2/11 5:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-11-30 19:42, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/30/2011 8:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-11-30 16:50, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>
>> Nope. If you need gzip
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 12/2/11 4:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/2/11 5:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-30 19
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 12/2/11 5:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/2/11 4:52 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On F
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Jonas,
>
> Since you believe we should keep the values of version as a non-nullable long
> long, what should the value of version be during the first run/creation if
> the transaction is aborted? Should it be 0 (I don't believe we want vers
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:30 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>>Subject: [indexeddb] error value of open request after aborting
>>VERSION_CHANGE transaction inside an onupgradeneeded handler
>>
>>What should be the value of the error attribut
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Travis Leithead
wrote:
> A new scenario just came to my attention that I thought I might
> pose to the list. Given the current same-origin restrictions on
> new Worker(), it is problematic for Worker usage by any JS
> libraries on a CDN.
>
> A site using a CDN simpl
201 - 300 of 2094 matches
Mail list logo
