Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Cheer up, I can think of _much_ worst things that have popped out of
the W3C onto the Web than Web Storage:)
Yeah but they typically have minimal impact on the deployed Web
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Cheer up, I can think of _much_ worst things that have popped out of
>> > > the W3C onto the Web than Web Storage:)
>> >
>> > Yeah b
only depend PR+ specs, but
it's
neither a hard rule, nor in the W3C process.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Sorry Ian, you are assuming you are the only one that can edit that
sp
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Ian, you are assuming you are the only one that can edit that
>> spec. If you want help with editing the spec or with the test suite,
>> just ask. I'm not say
th editing the spec or with the test suite,
just ask. I'm not saying I'll do it, but I can ask at Opera for one of
the WHATWG superstars to take it over. WDYT? or is it just too
entangled in HTML 5 to let someone else edit it?
> --
> Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
icons in the correct order. To pass,
> the icons list must contain a pointer "icon.png" followed by a pointer to
> "locales/en/icon.jpg".
fixed
> ==
>
> zz.wgt
>
> ✔ Tests the ability of the user agent to correctly deal with an icon element
> that points to a file that is not present in the widget package. To pass,
> the icon list must contain "pass.png".
>
> I don't think this is correct - either the package needs to include the file
> "icon.png" and that gets in the list, or the list needs to be empty, as
> there is no rule that identifies "pass.png" is a valid icon when its not
> specified as a custom icon.
You are correct. It now says "To pass, the icon list must be empty."
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
You once accused us of being a kindergarten, and now you are asking us
to willfully violate the process?
Well :), I do not want to remember those multi-context discussions.
We have already aligned.
Thanks.
Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise
epending also on further discussion on the
> topics in this mail thread, maybe it could be addressed during LC#2?) and
> will contain the diff between WARP and WARP4U.
>
Maybe... I recommend that you formally re-raise the local pattern
issues once we publish LC#2 or continue working on your new spec
(which Opera supports, btw)... but please, remove all duplicate text
and keep is short, as Robin suggested.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:38 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Please list exactly which comment were not addressed.
Many (various) comments resulted from this mail thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/1202.html
You (not sure about Robin, the editor) see
usuke Kanda
>
> www.access-company.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is
> privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or
> distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by
> responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
>
>
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Cyril Concolato wrote:
> Hi Marcos, Robin,
>
> Marcos Caceres a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:55 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cyril Concolato
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 22:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
I *really* like it; you never fail to impress Mr Berjon :)
*bows*
I learn from working with the best, sir.
... but the
first para should just be a "Note:" (we don't want to have that in as
normative
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:55 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cyril Concolato
>> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to implement the element-based localization and I found the spec
>>> unclear
> We support publishing this document.
>
Opera supports publishing this document.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Scott
Scott Wilson wrote:
Hi Marcos,
The latest P&C test results for Apache Wookie (incubating) are:
165 tests
16 ignored
17 failures
132 passes
Failed: dc,d4,an,co,za,bv,rd,b2, ao,cp,cj,af,e8,bl,bm,bn,zz (though the
last four test cases may be in error; see previous email)
Ignored (not au
and
> Configuration specification (proposed for CR #2). The test results can be
> found here:
> http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/widgets_compatibility_matrix/trunk/index.html
Congrats to the BONDI team :)
> Many thanks to Toby Ealden, Christian Breitschwerdt and Marcos Caceres fo
when it has nothing to
process inside the widget element.
To pass, the widget start file must be "index.htm""
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
t;pt" overrides
xml:lang="en" inherited from the widget element.
I am unlocalized content.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cyril Concolato
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to i
ght reading! :) ).
> Finally, I would also create some tests in the test-suite to check that
> inheritance is applied and used or not depending on the element type.WDYT?
I think it is a good idea to create tests for this. If you have
created some already, please send them to me off-list and I will add
them. I'm happy to discuss further what form these tests should take.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
t;;>
> A
> B
> D
> C
>
>
> My guess would be: "D"
>
> Am I correct?
Again, you are correct. I believe we have a test for that:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/test-cases/ta-VdCEyDVSA/005/config.xml
I guess it would be of value to add another example or two in the
spec. I will do that when we go to PR.
Thanks again for the feedback and for helping us improve both the spec
and the test suite! Sorry there are bits that are a bit ambiguous -
keep the feedback coming so we can fix that!:)
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
,4) and rest of the bullets are not which makes the algorithm
> refer to step 10 and 11 that don't exist.
>
Woops! fixed.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Nov 27, 2009, at 5:14 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
to test ITS support, the WebApps WG would appreciate some
guidance with designing a handful of test cases that the i18n WG would
consider suitable to provide interoperability across implementations.
Please make
Hi Cyril,
Cyril Concolato wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Marcos Caceres a écrit :
Hi Cyril,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Cyril Concolato
wrote:
Hi,
The test d1.wgt is about the src attribute of the icon element. It
says that
it tests the following assertion:
"If the src attribute of this
Dear i18n WG,
During the call to transition the Widgets Packaging and Configuration
specification (P&C) [1] to CR, the Director requested that aside from
the MUST assertions the Web Apps WG test the optional aspects of the
specification in our test-suite [2].
As you are aware, to facilitate t
ng rendered).
> Surely one can defer to
> `window.screen.width` and `window.screen.height` instead? I know it says
> `screen`, but just imagine it says `viewport`?
No, screen.width and screen.height means the screens width and height
(like 640x480)! not the viewport's width and height (apples and
oranges).
Also, HTML5's Window interface does not define the screen object... if
the bible does not says it exists, then it does not exist :)
> # My final proposal Widget interface proposal after thinking about it
> for two hours
>
>
> interface Widget {
> readonly attribute DOMString config; // innerXML or rather
> JSON
> representation of configuration document
> readonly attribute Storage preferences; // key value
> void openURL(in DOMString iri);
> };
I like the last two :)
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
;mail industry", therefore we
will probably not fix it here.
LOL, this stuff truly is turtles all the way down! :)
Thanks,
Marcin
From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Marcos Caceres [marc...@opera.com]
Sent: F
gt;
> As for me [2] does not match [1].
I don't know, maybe parameter allows spaces? but yeah, that first
space after "Content-type:" seems non-conforming.
>
> Anyway, it seems I can live with that issue, since it seems to affect more
> than just P&C J.
>
Me to
ween the icon element and
> the content element. There does not seem to be such test with the content
> element. If you make such test, you should also align the spec in the same
> manner.
I'm not sure I understand, can you design the test to show what you
mean. I can then add it to the test suite.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
ed. If we have a process for generating an SVG
> tree from an HTML tree, I wonder if it might not be simpler than merging the
> two.
>
Dunno. There are only about 10-20 or so tests that are affected by
this. It's probably easier to do this by hand.
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>
>
>
>
>
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
kinda need the table.
Also, it needs to be specified what precedence a user agent gives to
loading files, which is the second purpose of the table. The last
purpose of the table is to tell a user agent what MIME type to use for
each file type, which is also fairly important.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Scott Wilson
wrote:
> Thanks Marcos,
>
> I'm happy with this solution.
>
Great. Your approval has been noted in the disposition of comments:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-20091029/doc/
--
Ma
xed up; ag should result in "P A S S" and ah
>> should result in "PASS".
>>
>> S
>>
>> On 19 Nov 2009, at 23:05, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Scott Wilson
>>> wrote:
assets/
fr/
clock/
images/
assets/
"
As these comments came in after the deadline, I have not included the
text in the current spec. If the WG agrees, I will add them to
whatever the next publication will be (fingers crossed, it will be
PR).
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
3. say that parameter is allowed, but if it includes an encoding
parameter, then @encoding beats it (or the other way around).
OK
" let start file encoding be the value of the last
supported parameter components whose purpose is to declare the
character enco
Cyril Concolato wrote:
Yes I agree, that should not be difficult, I've already manually created
the green/red SVG files. But I was wondering about the order given in
the default start files table. For example, if a widget package contains
both a index.htm and index.svg, is the UA required to us
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Scott Wilson
wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2009, at 12:02, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> 2009/11/14 Scott Wilson :
>
> woops, fixed.
>
> Assertion 34: Test d7, d8
>
> ===
>
> These test cases both contain badly-formed XML:
>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> Artb would like to include this comment as part of our Disposition of
> Comments for P&C. We intend to republish next week, so I need an
> approval that you are satisfied with the response I sent you ASAP
>
>
> I see what you mean, but I guess something like:
>
>
> href="http://some.org/project_name/developers";>Simon
> and Garfunkel
>
>
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
as unclear, you still concluded
what I intended.
I based the specified behavior on Opera Unite which, from what I
understand, serves itself content from a widget package over HTTP, but
on the "server" level, talks to the widget package on it's own
proprietary protocol ("unite://" or something).
> Are we restricted e.g. to section 5 (“Unknown Type”)?
When the transport layer is using WURI, yes. I think so.
What we should do here is quickly ask Adam Barth to take a look at
what we have specified and make sure it is ok.
>
> c) The version of the SNIFF spec that is referred by P&C is 00 (by date) and
> it has already expired as ID.
>
Right. I will update this to the right version (for now, I removed the
date and just put "work in progress").
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
the above cases the author would just declare (and the UA
would just use the icon in all contexts):
A more complicated example would be:
However, I do not see a need to add such complexity to the spec. In
other words, though I have changed the definition of the icon width
and
t; since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to
> evolve in synchronised fashion — one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7.
>
> Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout.
I strongly agree (and have been pushing this for a long time)... Lets
drop the "1.0" everywhere in the widget family of specs.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
p://some.org/project_name/developers";>Simon
and Garfunkel
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
lieve will not only offer a fine-grain access control to
> specific features on a per-domain basis but can also be benefit
> implementations to load only those feature "modules" into the JavaScript
> context that are declared by the widget authors on a per-domain basis.
As WARP defines it's own processing model, so any additions can just
be defined there.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
ttribute."
> Should be an authoring guideline.
Fixed.
> 7.13.1
> "that a user agent will behave as the required attribute"
> Should be
> "that a user agent will behave as if the required attribute"
Fixed.
> Acknowledgments
> It seems a paragraph is missing there.
Fixed.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
ed back later with an external "policy file"
>> mechanism.
I don't know where you got the idea that it's a "widely held view" -
That is plainly ridiculous and verging on the insulting. I'm pretty
certain no one holds that view in DAP.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
====
> These test cases both contain badly-formed XML:
>
>
>
>
> Presumably these ought to be:
>
>
>
>
Fixed and checked in.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
an
identified product (in this case, a user agent). The tests do not
thoroughly test the WebIDL, which Dom's IDL test case generator will
thoroughly tests. I will work with Dom on getting those tests into the
test suite over the next week or so.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi all,
Widget interface spec ready for publication (Last Call) [1]. Will be out
sometime today (if not already published).
And test suite files are now online [2].
Enjoy in moderation!
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
[2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-ap
gine does not allow external image
> references, no image will
> be shown below:
> http://dev.opera.com/img/logo-beta.gif"/>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcos Caceres [mail
that happen. If you can commit some time, then we can talk about
how we get SVG as a standard part of the test suite. WDYT?
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 à 17:52 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I complete agree that manual tests bring a lot of value, but I think it
would be unwise to refuse automated tests that express exactly what the
spec expresses — in particular, they can be
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On the other hand, automated test generation can generate a large number
of test cases and is less prone to human errors. But, at the same time,
it cannot test some things that are written in
Hi Dom,
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I saw that the test suite for TWI was discussed on the WebApps call
today:
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#item05
Since the discussion didn’t allude at all to my mail below about
generated test cases, I thought I would point you
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I understand that too many details may not work or be an obstacle in the
adoption.
However, I derive that from the security point of view we still would like to
distinguish at least between executable and non-executable content.
I think this is established
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi,
What about semantic distinctions?
"tag" as proposed till now seems to be too detailed and does not scale.
For HTML/XHR:
means an executable content retrieved from the remote host.
![]()
,
http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/widgets_compatibility_matrix/trunk/index.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Placing broad restrictions on widget-context webapp access to network resources
(substantially different from browser-context webapps) is not an effective
approach to creating a useful widget-context webapp platform. That would create
a significant barrier
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Marcos,
I agree there is an assumption behind the approach I proposed, which I also believe will be valid
for the vast majority of widgets which will actually have "index.html" or something like
that as the start page. Further, the statements in the config.x
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 16:41 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
That would be 'application', but not maximized.
Uh, but those can be two different windowing modes, with the chrome
subtly different and different behaviour (e.g. the window can't be
dragged if maximised).
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Marcos,
Re "I'm personally not in favor of trying to deviate too much from the Web security model.": I agree with you,
and that is the point of the comments. The "web security model" (I think you mean the same-origin restriction)
does not restrict access to
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 13:05 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon :
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of view
modes: the diffe
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> 2009/10/5 Robin Berjon :
>>>
>>> it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of view
>>> modes: the differen
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Hi Marcos,
To be clear, your answer addresses point (2) only, and while I realize that the
idea proposed may not apply to all valid start files, it nonetheless did
address the point of the comment. It may not be the best solution but it is
just a start on
Hi All,
Phillips, Addison wrote:
Thank you, Arthur. We will review this as soon as possible.
FYI, using ITS is no longer at risk :) However, it is still an optional
feature for a user agent to implement.
Also, we are still gathering implementation feedback on the i18n model,
but it seems t
2009/9/15 Robin Berjon :
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 15:46 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2009, at 23:23 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is, because widget is assumed to be bound to the global sc
.
>
> Both desktops and phones tend to have this distinction in one way or another,
> so it sounds to me as something that we should expose as well.
>
> WDYT?
>
I think application mode already covers this if the application is
maximized as you defined it.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
efault hint for the user agent.
Also, I'm wondering if "all" should really just be "any". I guess that
is a bike shed, however.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
ave
done with P&C and with Dig Sig). Please feel free to contribute some
tests.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Dear IETF,
As part of the Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration Specification
progressing to Last Call, the W3C Web Applications Working Group would
like to begin registration procedures for the "application/widget" MIME
type.
We have written a draft of the registration text for you to rev
me.
> 6. Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
>
> a. Topic list for f2f meeting:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#Access_Requests_Policy_.28WARP.29_spec
>
>
> 7. AOB
>
> a. No call on Nov 5; next call will be Nov 12
Great! :) See y'all at TuPAC
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
/widgets-api/
>
> a. Topic list for f2f meeting:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#The_widget_Interface_.28TWI.29_spec
>
>
> 6. Access Requests Policy (WARP) spec
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/
>
> a. Topic list for f2f meeting:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2009Widgets#Access_Requests_Policy_.28WARP.29_spec
>
>
> 7. AOB
>
> a. No call on Nov 5; next call will be Nov 12
>
>
>
>
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Cyril Concolato
wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> Marcos Caceres a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Cyril,
>> Thank you for again taking the the time to review the P&C spec...
>> comments below.
>>
>> 2009/10/25 Cyril Concolato :
>>
paths is no longer dependent on encoding.
Validity is now simply based on whether a zip path matches the ABNF
for a zip relative path.
]]
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
ion to a remote host. Mitigation and in-depth defensive
measures are an implementation responsibility and not prescribed by
this specification. However, in designing these measures, implementers
are advised to enable user awareness of information sharing, and to
provide easy access to interfaces that enable revocation of
permissions. "
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0364.html
This is now in the spec. I've requested people contribute some text.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
on of IRIs within
certain elements of a configuration documents, implementers need to
consider the security considerations discussed in the [IRI]
specification.
]]
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
resources.
Anyway, I'll let you tell us what you mean.
> For example, have you envisaged registering a media type for the XML
> configuration file?
>
No, not yet. However, I don't think it's necessary as it can just be
served as application/xml and semantics acted upon from interpreting
the namespace.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
h the dot.
> So I am ok with the current P&C TSE and await being able to comment the next
> LCWD asap.
>
Ok, lets continue the discussion once we go to LC.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
able, we should only have to add it there and not change
> the processing algorithm.
>
I understand the rationale, but I don't see it as necessary. Lets just
cover what is in the spec. In version 2, if we need to support this
later, we can add it easily. It won't break backwards compat because
we will just be expanding the range.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
amp;C we shall assume that file extension is just any sequence of
> characters that occur after the last dot (U+002E FULL STOP) including that
> dot.
>
I really don't understand what you are intending to solve or what you
think the spec does here?
To be clear: All we want to do is check if the file extension of a
file case-insensitively matches one of the extensions in the File
Identification Table. If you can't match it, then the MIME type gets
resolved with SNIFF.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
lic/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0183.html
This has now been addressed.
> b. Call for Consensus to publish LCWD #3, based on the TSE version of the
> spec:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html
Regrets, Arve and I cannot join the call, but Opera supports
publication of th
= 1*allowed-char
> file-extension = "." 1*allowed-char
>
> to:
>
> file-name = 1*allowed-char
>
> (i.e. remove base-name and file-extension).
>
> The removal of ambiguity is motivated by the dependency of the WURI/WUS spec
> on P&am
2009/10/15 Robin Berjon :
> On Oct 15, 2009, at 13:36 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> The spec currently reads:
>>
>> "If the Zip archive is encrypted, as defined in [Zip], return an error
>> and terminate this algorithm."
>>
>> Which effect
As no one objected, ITS is no longer a feature at risk. It is the WG
recommended solution to this particular i18n problem.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:46
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 18:14 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>>
>> ta-VngNBkhUXz:
>> "If the protocol used for acquisition of a potential Zip archive
>> does
>> not provide, or otherwise includ
Just wanted to let people know about the Widgets Compatibility Matrix
for Packaging and Configuration that our Invited Experts, Samuel Santos
and Daniel Silva from Present Technologies, and myself, are
collaborating on.
See:
http://samaxes.svn.beanstalkapp.com/widgets_compatibility_matrix/tru
y, skip all the steps
in this algorithm below, and move onto the next range."
]]
[1]
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#step-5--derive-the-user-agents-locale
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
widgets as invalid. If a user agent wants to
support this, they should be free to do so without the risk of being
labeled non-conformant (or otherwise willfully violating the spec).
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
s accepted, it be nice if we did this for all the widget
specs (i.e., drop "1.0") :)
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
" / "(" / ")" / "&" / "+"
/ "," / "=" / "[" / "]" / "."
UTF8-2 = %xC2-DF UTF8-tail
UTF8-3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-tail / %xE1-EC 2( UTF8-tail ) /
%xED %x80-9F UTF8-tail / %xEE-EF 2( UTF8-tail )
UTF8-4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2( UTF8-tail ) / %xF1-F3 3( UTF8-tail ) /
%xF4 %x80-8F 2( UTF8-tail )
UTF8-tail = %x80-BF
language-range = (1*8low-alpha / "*") *("-" (1*8alphanum / "*"))
alphanum = low-alpha / DIGIT
low-alpha = %x61-71
[1] http://www.quut.com/abnfgen/
(using abnfgen path.abnf | xargs mkdir -p )
[SNIFF]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff-03
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#default-icons-table
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Robin Berjon wrote:
Hey Marcos,
On Oct 9, 2009, at 16:07 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Oct 9, 2009, at 13:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
For simplicity, keeping a two-dimensional lookup of media type ×
locales folder makes the implementation
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Marcos,
>
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:33 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> 3. In Step 7, step 7 gets dropped.
>
>
> Just so we all clearly understand your #3 above, do you mean delete all of
> step #7 (including it
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 13:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> For simplicity, keeping a two-dimensional lookup of media type ×
>> locales folder makes the implementation easiest and yields the least
>> surprises.
>
lang:
Yes, multiple repetitions of the same xml:lang value are allowed.
]]
Becomes:
[[
Localizable via xml:lang:
No. Relies on folder-based localization.
]]
2. the concept of "elements are grouped by language" gets removed from
the Element-Based Localization section.
3. In Ste
will be
able to process.
http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets"; />
]]
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:11 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>>>
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:11 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:25 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>
>>&
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:25 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> (Apologies up front, the following is going to to seem like a rather
>> dumb and slightly condescending discussion. I honestly do not mean it
>> to be, but
algorithm and treat this widget package as an invalid
Zip archive.
If the root element is not a widget element in the widget namespace,
then the user agent must terminate this algorithm and treat this
widget package as an invalid Zip archive.
]]
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:46 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we have any evidence at all that it (as defined in the 23-July-2009
>>&
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:34 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Marcsos, All, - given the next publication of the widgets P&C spec will
601 - 700 of 1416 matches
Mail list logo
