On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It would be nice if we could find a way to make things more rigorous
with a mechanism that's convenient to both spec writers and browser
developers.
On possibility: we could consistently use
On Jun 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak:
WebKit doesn't have the same technical constraints as Mozilla,
however
this change doesn't really seem helpful and it would be annoying to
have
to replace all instances of DOMString in our existing IDL.
find
On Jun 28, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
The OMG-ish IDL fragments published for W3C specs use C preprocessor-
like directives to include other IDL fragments, so that names resolve
correctly. For example,
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/idl/events.idl has:
[...]
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough
consensus and strong
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be
used by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though
it is open source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It
seems unlikely that
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing
of Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing
issues.
First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the
erstwhile SleepyCat license
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and
programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide
resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three
deliverables.
We already have a broad charter and
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley
DB to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only
interested in understanding how to do look up by one or more of
them, please skip to slide 51.
If this
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
In any case, adding a new feature to a spec whose future is uncertain
isn't a good idea because it means that the new feature's progress
is tied
to the uncertain future of the rest of the spec. Thus, my
recommendation
to Nikunj would be to
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't
believe it really
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have proposed to Mozilla a solution that provides access to an
organized
key-value database such as that
On Jun 24, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Members of the Web Apps WG,
Below is an email from Henry Thompson (forwarded with his
permission), on behalf of the TAG [1], re the CORS spec [2].
Two things:
1. Please respond to at least this part of Henry's mail:
[[
It appeared to us
On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
That's true. THe question is whether a REC makes it easier to get a
new interoperable implementation. And it's open, as far as I can see.
Assuming we have implementation of everything, twice, and that for
everything we have at
Section 8 says:
It is better to include a unique identifier in the document when it
is served and then pass that identifier as part of the URL in the
src attribute of the eventsource element.
But there is no eventsource element or src attribute defined by this
specification.
Section
On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I agree that no such thing as standard SQL (or rather the fact
that implementations all have extensions and divergences from the
spec) is a problem. But I am not sure inventing a brand new query
language
On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
I mean something like
openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize)
On Mar 23, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Mar/0066.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Apr/0009.html
I read those. That was long after this was initially discussed
though. And also
On Mar 23, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Mar 23, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Mar/0066.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Apr/0009.html
I read those
We're interested in implementing XBL2 in WebKit as well, though I
can't give a specific timetable.
On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Feb 10, 2009, at 15:27 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
I don't know if there is precedent in counting JS-based
On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 1/15/2009 10:40 PM:
CONCLUSION: We should use a single Origin header with the name and
semantics of the Access-Control Origin header for both its
Access-Control purpose and for redirect defense. The differences
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Bil Corry wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 1/15/2009 12:47 AM:
So one thing to keep in mind is that any POST-based form would not be
vulnerable to this kind of attack unless the victim site actually
submits a form to an untrusted site. There is no way for a GET
Hixie said the position I expressed was a little unclear, so I'd like
to clarify briefly:
1) FACT: The HTML5 version of the CSRF-defense header (currently
called 'XXX-Origin' as a temporary measure) is specified not to be
sent for GET requests.
1.a) FACT: As a result, it does not
On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Bil Corry wrote:
Adrian Bateman wrote on 1/14/2009 3:18 PM:
I actually don't think that the generic name is a problem as long
as the
CSRF solution uses a different name for a different meaning. The
value really
is an Origin and could potentially be used for
On Jan 14, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Bil Corry wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 1/14/2009 6:14 PM:
Why does the CSRF defense header need to change on redirect?
Because to the site on the far end, it would appear the request came
from somewhere it didn't, effectively hiding the real source
I support the publication as Last Call.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Hi,
Lachy thinks the latest editor's draft[1] is ready for Last Call,
after responding to all the comments from last time (and removing
the NSResolver). The disposition of comments[2]
On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
All,
Maceij wrote:
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008OctDec/0010.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0047.html
[3]
On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Maciej,
My first question would be:
Why did you ignore Apple's proposal to start with a minimal common
interface (which most people seemed to like) and instead wrote a
draft
On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Why did you ignore Apple's proposal to start with a minimal common
interface (which most people seemed to like) and instead wrote a
draft that
is the union of all things in Robin's original spec, all things
that Mozilla
happened to
On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I'm considering dropping ByteArray support. That is, removing
support for it from send() and removing responseBody for now. At
this point it's not really clear what the future of ByteArray is and
it seems nobody is driving that work
On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
// should be implemented by Window objects
interface WindowTimer {
Timer startTimer(in double delayInSeconds, in boolean repeating,
in TimerHandler handler);
}
How about a Timer constructor function instead?
Pros:
* Fits the
On Oct 3, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:43:55 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A number of WebKit developers (including from the Chrome team and
the Safari team) have been discussing ideas for a new and improved
timer API
On Oct 3, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Hi Chris.
I really like the idea of a Timer object. It would allow you to
separate creation from starting, allows you to pause and add other
API's to the interface. Can the constructor be used to simplify the
creation:
var t = new
is needed here.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] On Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:44 PM
To: public-webapps@w3.org Group WG
Subject: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API
Hello Web Apps WG,
A number
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Hi Maciej,
Thanks for raising this. It's a good addition to the web platform. I'm
definitely +1 to the idea.
2008/10/2 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
// should be implemented by Window objects
interface WindowTimer {
Timer
I think [NativeObject] should be renamed to [Callback]. It is meant to
be used for callback objects that have a single designated callback
method, right?
I think [Variadic] should be renamed [Optional]. A function may be
variadic, but a parameter is optional, and this goes on the
Hello Web Apps WG,
A number of WebKit developers (including from the Chrome team and the
Safari team) have been discussing ideas for a new and improved timer
API. We would like to serve the following use cases which we feel are
not well served by the de facto standard (and now HTML5
On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Hey Chaals, What makes you think that your pious and arrogant attitude
makes you a moderator? You have no right to dictate what I can say.
The fact that Chaals is a co-Chair of the Web Applications working
group makes him a moderator of
On Aug 27, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
Given that, I suggest moving forward:
Test, then document those methods as having special behavior. Do
this not by a null-value mapping, but by documenting the method's
algorithm in simple terms. e.g. if X is not a
On Aug 26, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So let me repeat the question with
the grammatical error fixed. Please do excuse any other grammar
errors I
introduce as English is a second language to me.
3)
On Aug 26, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Option (a) is unacceptable for the following reasons:
1) It does not match existing implementations and thus would likely
break
compatibility with existing content.
2) It violates the DOM Level 3 Core specification, which says: On
On Aug 26, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
Null is not the empty string.
No one claimed that it was. A number of DOM methods are specified as
treating them equivalently, however.
On Aug 11, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
The other problem is that setTimeout does not result in async
javascript
execution it merely delays the synchronous execution of a script.
I've just tried to upload a 1.1mb log file from my hard drive and had
no issue reading. Using
On Aug 7, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Olli Pettay wrote:
Could we actually just say that if document implements
DocumentView interface and .defaultView isn't null and implements
EventTarget, the event propagates to .defaultView. So in
mail here seems to be on 7/21.
Jonas and I agreed offline that angle brackets are not required for
unambiguous parsing.
- MAciej
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:32 PM
To: Jonas Sicking
Cc: Sunava Dutta; [EMAIL
On Jul 20, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
According to the HTML5 spec space is a valid characted inside URLs.
That wasn't intentional -- can you point to where it says that? The
HTML5 spec relies on spaces not being
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
I have two minor concerns with this proposal, both in the cases
where
it differs from Gears:
1. Combining
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Sunava Dutta wrote:
I’m in time pressure to lock down the header names for Beta 2 to
integrate XDR with AC. It seems no body has objected to Jonas’s
proposal. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0175.html
Please let me know if this
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Eric Lawrence wrote:
The specific concern with redirections is that we know of instances
where redirection systems are in use that do not currently support
addition of custom response headers, and cannot be trivially updated
to add such headers. These
,
whether or not it opts into Access-Control, in the cross-domain case.
Regards,
Maciej
Thanks!
Eric Lawrence
Program Manager - IE Security
Want to view and tamper with HTTP(S) traffic?
Try http://www.fiddler2.com
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:07 PM
On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote:
You could argue that this example is contrived (and it is), but I
think it still illustrates the point. The current interleaving of
mutations and events is bad for (some) implementations and good for
web authors. Your proposed
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Is the only difference from the Gears proposal the name of the object
(File) and the lack of reading APIs initially?
The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension.
We are proposing making the File object usable
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's
extension. We
are proposing making the File object usable directly as an XHR
body, so that
we can all
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Laurens Holst wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Schepers schreef:
Sergey Ilinsky wrote (on 7/15/08 6:39 AM):
Doug Schepers wrote:
1. DOMNodeRemoved and DOMNodeRemovedFromDocument would be fired
after the mutation rather than before
2. DOM operations that perform multiple
On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:40:44 +0200, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Would it be acceptable if I defined one, but made it optional for
implementers to support? Or at least optional for ECMAScript
On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:54:17 +0200, Sunava Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I prefer
Access-control: *
Access-control: URL
I suppose it would be slightly shorter, but it's also less clear.
I would be in favor of Access-Control or
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Doug Schepers, Charles McCathieNevile (Chairs), Members of the WG,
On behalf of Mozilla, I'd like to introduce the possibility of two
new work items for this group to consider. Neither of these is
presented as a fait accompli,
On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
CC trimmed a bit for people I know are in the list without looking.
Sadly Microsoft still haven't got around to joining, so it falls on
Chris to pass this on until they get to do the legal work.
NB: The chairs are actually Art
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
Hi folks,
the agenda and logistics page for the meeting will be shortly
available to working group members (Sunava, can you please ask your
AC rep to ensure that you guys have joined by the time we have the
meeting?).
I
are about transparent, read-write caches
that are auto-synchronized using Atom publishing protocol.
I hope this makes clear the intent of my original email.
Regards,
Nikunj
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Hi Art, Charles,
We have developed
On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
After reviewing your comments, I am much more inclined to favor
Microsoft's proposal on this: rename the relevant headers. I think
you argued that this doesn't scale, but I think only two headers
have
On Jun 16, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Maciej-
You may have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not propose that
issues be brought up and solved in a binding manner during a single
telcon (though some minor issues may be, in the interest of acting
in a suitably-paced
On Jun 13, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Simon Pieters:
Ok, good that it is defined.
But is there a good reason why it is this way rather than what I'd
expected (same as readonly attributes)? I think authors should be
able to
rely on constants being, um, constant. No?
It
301 - 363 of 363 matches
Mail list logo
