On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
AFAICT, RFC 2616 only does a special case for the Authorization
header, which leaves me wondering what shared caches do for other
kinds of credentials, such as cookies or the NTLM authentication that
Cookies require
Vary: Cookie
on
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
I think the credentials flag should specifically affect cookies, http
authentication, and client-side SSL certs, but not proxy authentication (or,
obviously, Origin). Anne
On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
- Considerations around DNS rebinding.
Why would these be specific to XMLHttpRequest?
These indeed apply to just about any specification that uses a same-origin
policy. But that's not a justification for
On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
HTTPbis should address this threat in the security considerations section,
and should strongly consider making it a MUST-level requirement for servers
to check
On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
As you know, we will be up for rechartering on 30 June 2010.
However, we have a few new deliverables, and we've been specifically
advised that though they are arguably in scope, it would be better
transparency if e.g.
On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:11:40 +0100, Anton Muhin
ant...@chromium.org wrote:
Is it possible to allow caching for those cases? Firefox caches
those
node lists for a long time (Maciej found the related bug
On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:11:40 +0100, Anton Muhin
ant...@chromium.org wrote:
Is it possible to allow caching for those cases? Firefox caches
those
node lists for a long time
On Feb 12, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:51:03 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:11:40 +0100, Anton Muhin ant
On Feb 12, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:13:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Is it really a lot of performance? Our developers are not that
convinced.
A patch that made the change
On Feb 12, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Also, what happens with garbage collection? Say some isolated piece
of code does:
x = document.getElementsByTagName(x)
x.p = 2
... and then later on some other piece of code does:
y = document.getElementsByTagName(x)
w(p in y
On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Test 1: ~4350ms
Test 2: ~2100ms
Test 3: ~80ms
Test 4: ~10ms
and in Opera 10.5 pre alpha:
Test 1: ~520ms
Test 2: ~3809ms
Test 3: ~541ms
Test 4: ~3828ms
and in Safari 4:
Test 1: ~260ms
Test 2: ~1309ms
Test 3: ~131ms (?)
Test 4: ~20ms
Given
On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Anton Muhin ant...@chromium.org
wrote:
Good day.
Currently DOM core 3 spec is somewhat inconsistent regarding if
invocations of getElementsByTagName and alike must return a new
NodeList or could cache this
On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Web Applications Working Group Issue
Tracker wrote:
ISSUE-115 (xhr-referer): XHR does not specify what URL to use for
Referer [XHR]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/115
Raised by: Maciej Stachowiak
On product: XHR
XHR does not specify what URL
On Feb 16, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I introduced a new constructor argument for XMLHttpRequest, named
anon. This is based on the earlier thread where I suggested that UMP
is not needed if we make this small enhancement to XMLHttpRequest.
Basically, if the parameter is
On Feb 17, 2010, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The goal is to minimize risk that people make mistakes. No one is
disputing that if everyone writes perfect code there won't be security
issues. The problem is that people tend to not write perfect code.
That is the whole reason for having
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi,
it appears to me that this header replicates something that is
already there; just use the last event ID as etag, and then you can
do something like:
GET /foobar HTTP/1.1
If-None-Match: abc
Note that this makes If-None-Match a
On Mar 2, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 02.03.2010 12:53, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Using If-None-Match this way seems like a bad fit in a couple of
ways:
- Event IDs are not ETags at the HTTP level. It seems like a layering
violation to treat event IDs, or indeed anything
On Mar 17, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Anton Muhin wrote:
For me performance-wise both approaches seem fine, but to get
numbers I
need to run an experiment.
My main concern would be that rules are overcomplicated imho. And I
won't be surprised if IE and FF
The following items are not listed as new in the draft charter,
although they do not appear in the previous charter and are not an
obvious continuation of a previous charter spec:
Indexed Database API
Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving
Uniform Messaging Policy
Selectors API Level 2
While reviewing the new Web Apps WG charter, I noticed that the
current (2008) charter does not list this deliverable. It also says:
The WebApps WG will not take on new Recommendation-Track Widgets
deliverables without new charter review.
Could someone point me to the justification for
On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Maciej-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 3/22/10 10:36 PM):
The following items are not listed as new in the draft charter,
although they do not appear in the previous charter and are not an
obvious continuation of a previous charter spec
On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Mar 23, 2010, at 06:39 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Indexed Database API
Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving
Uniform Messaging Policy
Selectors API Level 2
Widgets Access Request Policy
Widgets URI Scheme
Widgets View Mode
I tried to omit
On Mar 26, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Maciej,
On 26/03/10 3:24 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Apple has chosen not to participate in Widgets standards work at the
W3C.
That's not true, Apple has directly influenced and participated in
the work: remember [1
On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
I've put together a wiki page [1] that I propose to send to the AC
as a further clarification on the charter discussion. How does this
look to you?
Does everyone agree that this is fair representation of the changed
work
On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
I've put together a wiki page [1] that I propose to send to the AC
as a further clarification on the charter discussion. How does this
look to you?
Does everyone agree that this is fair representation of the changed
work
On Mar 29, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Maciej-
I'm a little frustrated to be having this conversation now, after I
tried for several weeks to get comments on the charter before
sending it to W3M, and then to the AC. There was substantial
discussion on both the
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Re the relationship between CORS and UMP, I believe the last thread
on that
subject was the following exchange between Mark and Maceij on
February 3:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
Reading between the lines, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, I
suspect what you're really saying is that you don't want two specs to
exist and you feel committed to CORS.
I'm saying the latter, but not the former. So long as UMP is a
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
Actually, the other proposal is to provide an XHR-like API that
would use CORS forcing a unique origin as an input parameter -
there is no need to
My hope
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Maciej, Tyler - thanks for continuing this discussion. I think it
would be
helpful to have consensus on what we mean by subsetting in this
context.
(Perhaps the
On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
In general, whitelists are bad because they close extension points.
Please consider using a black list instead.
But blacklists are worse for security, and security is the prime
consideration here.
Regards,
Maciej
On Apr 18, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 18.04.2010 14:35, Ben Laurie wrote:
In general, whitelists are bad because they close extension
points.
Please consider using a black list instead.
In general, blacklists are bad because they open security holes.
My experience
On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
Uniform-Headers = Uniform-Headers : ( * | #field-name )
[...]
Are Apple and/or Firefox interested in implementing the above? Does
mnot or other HTTP WG members consider the above a satisfactory
solution to ISSUE-90?
I'm interested in
On Apr 19, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tyler Close
tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in
firefox
if we can come up
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in
firefox
if we can come
On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
I agree that Anonymous or Anon is more
On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Thanks, the Tor example is clarifying. Tor attempts to actually
provide anonymity, by attempting to hide all information that might
be inadvertently identifying, like IP address, traffic patterns, or
other side channels. The threat model
On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
That being said, I'm totally open to a name that conveys the same
meaning with less perceived ambiguity. I just don't think Uniform
is it. It doesn't get across
On May 10, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/7/2010 1:32 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
Hey all,
Per the current spec [1], noOverwrite defaults to false for put
operations on an object store. Ben Turner and I have been
discussing changing the
On May 11, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@google.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tyler Close
tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
wrote:
What is the difference
On May 6, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Here is a brief proposal for how we could simplify the current set of CORS
headers. We can use this thread to evaluate whether it is worth breaking with
what Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and IE are doing now. And whether all parties
are
On May 13, 2010, at 3:05 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 12.05.2010 22:39, Nathan wrote:
Devdatta wrote:
As for the should CORS exist discussion, I'll bow out of those until
we're starting to move towards officially adopting a WG decision one
way or another, or genuinely new information is
On May 14, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 03:40:12 +0200, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Exactly, so the off-domain IFRAME is the only option here.
iframe srcdoc=... sandbox=allow-scripts is an alternative solution, if you
want everything in the
On May 22, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Even though no one is currently considering implementing this outside of
JavaScript land and even though it'll limit us some and making speccing
harder, I think it'd be a mistake to depend on JavaScript. And, as far as I
can tell, the
I am also happy with this suggested approach.
- Maciej
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
SOLD to the bearded french dude!
Seriously though, this sounds great.
/ Jonas
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi all,
thanks a lot for this
On Jun 30, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
May I propose FileWriter in place of BlobWriter? ;-)
You are actually always writing to files, so it would make a lot of sense
IMO.
We renamed BlobReader based on
On Jul 8, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with the name Blob; I like it just fine. And
I think it's a bit odd to have a BlobReader but a FileWriter, but if
that's what everybody's happy
On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
The biggest unknown in the current BlobWriter spec [1] is how you
obtain one in the first place.
There
On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current
{DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) [2].
When our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to configurable:
false, which completely
On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Travis Leithead wrote:
Sure.
Not only does ES5's configurable: false property prevent deletion, but it
also prevents changing a property from a field to an accessor and vice-versa,
as well as changing the getter/setters of the property.
So, the following
On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne proposes WebApps publish a new WD of XHR Level 2 and this is a Call for
Consensus to do so:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please send them to
On Sep 5, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:
On Sunday, September 5, 2010, 4:00:20 AM, Adam wrote:
body { binding: url(example.xbl#nav-then-main); }
AB Adding active content via CSS is bad for security. For example, IE
AB has removed support for CSS expressions (which execute script)
On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Hi,
I thought I'd email some people directly to figure out what we can do with
Attr as it is one of the last bits not defined yet in Web DOM Core and I
would sort of like to handle it so the specification is complete (at least
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
It might be nice to provide the parts of this that make sense on
HTMLAnchorElement and Location, then see if a new interface really pulls its
weight.
Another piece
is spelled HTML WG, not HTML5 WG.
Regards,
Maciej Stachowiak
W3C HTML Working Group Co-Chair
I support this publication.
Regards,
Maciej
On Sep 25, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working Draft
(FPWD) of the Web DOM Core spec based on the following Editor's Draft:
Possibly of interest to this group.
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: public-h...@w3.org
From: Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net
Date: October 11, 2010 2:17:24 PM PDT
To: HTML WG public-h...@w3.org, w3c-html...@w3.org w3c-html...@w3.org
Cc: J. Neumann openst...@aol.com
Subject: ECMA TC
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Erik Arvidsson:
The problem is that trying to get a non existing property in JS should
return undefined. Not null and not an empty string. I understand that
the spec used null since
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Stewart Brodie
stewart.bro...@antplc.com wrote:
Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
When WebKit or Firefox trunk create an HTML script element node via
Range::createContextualFragment, the script has its
On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 10/21/2010 09:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It is indeed not part of any standard. It was originally a Mozilla
vendor extension, later copied by Opera and Safari. We added support
for it in 2002 because at least at the time, some sites
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Explicitly throwing an exception at the site that tries to access the data
in the wrong way obviously and immediately points a finger at the problem.
Sort of. Except the failure happens at runtime in uncontrolled
circumstances and
On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
But both approaches would reliably throw exceptions if a client got things
wrong.
See, there's the thing. Neither approach is all that reliable (even to the
point of throwing sometimes but not others for identical code), and access is
On Oct 28, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 10/29/10 12:15 AM, James Robinson wrote:
Are we talking about ArrayBuffer here or Blob?
The former.
It's never acceptable to block javascript on a synchronous disk access
Why?
Other questions to consider:
1) Why is it ok to
On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 26.10.2010 12:12, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
...
If they were exposed via getResponseHeader() you would have the
potential for clashes so that does not seem like a good idea.
...
The clashes would be the same as for any repeating
I favor publication of Web Messaging.
Regards,
Maciej
On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed in an
interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web Messaging [1] and
this is a CfC to do so:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM,
On Dec 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
At least in Gecko's case, we still use XBL1 in this way, and those design
goals would apply to XBL2 from our point of view. It sounds like you have
entirely different design goals, right?
Sounds like it.
OK, so given contradictory
I support this publication.
- Maciej
On Feb 23, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne and Ms2ger (representing Mozilla Foundation) have continued to work on
the DOM Core spec and they propose publishing a new Working Draft of the spec:
On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Anne-
I object to publishing a Working Draft of the DOM Core spec that includes DOM
Events.
Introducing conflicting specifications that cover the same materials
dramatically harms interoperability, and the idea of competing
On Feb 26, 2011, at 7:15 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
I will remove my objection to publish DOM Core if: 1) conflicts (rather than
extensions) are removed from the draft, or reconciled with changes in DOM3
Events; and 2) for those changes that have broad consensus, we can integrate
them
For what it's worth, I think this is a useful draft and a useful technology.
Hotlinking prevention is of considerable interest to Web developers, and doing
it via server-side Referer checks is inconvenient and error-prone. I hope we
can fit it into Web Apps WG, or if not, find another goo home
On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this something you'd like to be implemented in the browsers,
Yes.
and if yes, why? What would be the reasons to not just use script
libraries (like your prototype).
FAQ item also coming for this.
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this something you'd like to be implemented in the browsers,
Yes
On Apr 28, 2011, at 5:46 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I agree with much of this. However it's hard to judge without a bit
more meat on it. Do you have any ideas
I am not a fan of this API because I don't think it provides sufficient
encapsulation. The words encapsulation and isolation have been used in
different ways in this discussion, so I will start with an outline of different
possible senses of encapsulation that could apply here.
== Different
On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Hi hi,
Is there anyone who has objections against publishing
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html as a FPWD. The
idea is mainly to gather more feedback to see if there is any interest in
taking this forward.
On Jun 29, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Hi Folks!
With use cases (http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases)
So I looked at this list of use cases. It seems to me almost none of these are
met by the proposal at http://dglazkov.github.com/component-model/dom.html.
On Jun 30, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Hi Maciej!
First off, I really appreciate your willingness to get into the mix of
things. It's a hard problem and I welcome any help we can get to solve
it.
I also very much liked your outline of encapsulation and I would like
to
On Jun 30, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Maciej, as promised on #whatwg, here's a more thorough review of your
proposal. I am in agreement in the first parts of your email, so I am
going to skip those.
== Are there other limitations created by the lack of encapsulation? ==
My
On Jun 30, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
In the case of extending elements with native shadow DOM, you have to
use composition or have something like
On Jul 15, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
On Jul 15, 2011, at 16:47 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:43:13 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
As indicated a year ago [1] and again at the end of last month [2], the
proposal to create a new Web
On Jul 31, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/from-origin/
The proposed `From-Origin` header conveys a subset of the information
that is already available through the Referer header.
From-Origin is a response header and Referer is a
On Aug 1, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Hill, Brad wrote:
The ability to do all of these things server-side, with referrer checking,
has been universally available for fifteen years. (RFC 1945)
In every one of the use cases below, From-Origin is a worse solution than
referrer checking. What is
In an IRC discussion with Ian Hickson and Tab Atkins, we can up with the
following idea for convenient element creation:
Element.create(tagName, attributeMap, children…)
Creates an element with the specified tag, attributes, and children.
tagName - tag name as a string; by default it
On Aug 1, 2011, at 8:36 PM, João Eiras wrote:
On , Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
In an IRC discussion with Ian Hickson and Tab Atkins, we can up with
the following idea
On Aug 1, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Can we have it 'inherit' a parent namespace, and have chaining properties?
Element.create('div').create('svg').create('g').create('rect', {title: 'An
svg rectangle in
On Aug 2, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:53:49 +0200, Thomas Roessler t...@w3.org wrote:
Well, groups can decide to stop working on a deliverable without having to
recharter; further, we've had separate groups work on joint deliverables in
the past. In
I think it would be reasonable to defer the feature requested in 15210 to a
future version of Web Sockets API. It would also be reasonable to include it if
anyone feels strongly. Was a reason cited for why 15210 should be considered
critical? I could not find one in the minutes.
Cheers,
On May 17, 2012, at 10:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com wrote:
I am working on it. I was just getting some feedback on the general idea
before I sunk a bunch of time in it.
For what it's worth, I definitely support
The current draft URL spec has a number of Parameter-related methods
(getParameterNames, getParameterValues, hasParameter, getParameter,
setParameter, addParameter, removeParameter, clearParameters)[1]. Apparently
these methods refer to key-value pairs in the query part of the URL as
Hi folks,
I wanted to mention that, in addition to the extra implementation complexity, I
am not sure that multiple independent UndoManagers per page is even a good
feature.
The use cases document gives a use case of a text editor with an embedded
vector graphics editor. But for all the
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Correct. If we applied CAS on attribute changes, we'd have... problems.
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
Ryosuke also
On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:08 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org
mailto:o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org
mailto:rn
On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I have mixed feelings about this proposal overall, but I think it's a little
weird to use CSS property syntax instead of markup-like attribute syntax to
set attributes. I think this makes the syntax confusingly
+1
I don't see an indication of any major browser but Chrome planning to implement
this and expose it to the Web.
- Maciej
On Sep 18, 2012, at 4:04 AM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
Hi all,
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API
from
asynchronous listing
of files in input type=file multiple?
-Darin
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
+1
I don't see an indication of any major browser but Chrome planning to
implement this and expose it to the Web.
- Maciej
On Sep 18, 2012, at 4
201 - 300 of 363 matches
Mail list logo
