On April 29, 2014 at 8:36:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
> 4. It should be exposed in workers.
See: http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#Exposed for the details of how to do that.
Contains an example.
On May 14, 2014 at 2:48:12 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote:
> [ Bcc: www-tag; please Reply-to: public-webapps ]
> If you have any comments, please send them by May 21 at the latest. We
> are also interested in +1 type replies so we can a sense about who
> supports this proposal.
On May 29, 2014 at 9:02:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
> The plan is to implement and ship this fairly soon, so I figured I'd
> ask for review now, while we're still drafting the text:
>
> http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#fetch-api
>
> In particular I'd like feedback on the
; and "exit
extents". If you can give me some pointers to what you mean, I'm happy to go
and do the research for the use cases, etc.
[#161] https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/161
--
Marcos Caceres
the W3C process is clearly not working. Even
if we were able to take the V1 bits to Rec (a lot of which is now obsolete),
the V2 stuff is already widely supported and heavily relied on by browser
vendors. IMO, it's a waste of everyone's time to try to maintain multiple
versions.
--
Marcos Caceres
> the chairs issue a call for volunteers for co-editor on WebIDL.
Anyone can edit the spec. It's just a github repo. Send a PR. There is no need
for a special call from the Chairs as an excuse to do work.
--
Marcos Caceres
> On 25 May 2016, at 3:54 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
>
> Hello WP,
>
> At the AC meeting in March 2016 the WP co-chairs indicated that the
> Packaging on the Web specification [1] would benefit from further incubation
> before continuing along the Recommendation track.
>
> This is a CFC to publ
Can we please kindly stop the +1s spam? It greatly diminishes the value of this
mailing list.
For the purpose of progressing a spec, the only thing that matters is
objections.
> On 3 Jun 2016, at 12:36 AM, Mona Rekhi wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Mona Rekhi
> SSB BART Group
>
> -Original Messag
> On 3 Jun 2016, at 2:28 AM, John Foliot wrote:
>
> Hi Marcos,
>
> While it may feel spammy to you, this is a long-standing part of the W3C
> Consensus process, and generally speaking all CfCs include the following:
>
> "Positive responses are preferred an
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 10:45 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>
> The goal of publishing this as a REC is not to have a final document nor to
> please only
> the lawyers. The goal is to provide a document that contains the parts of the
> WebIDL
> syntax that are implemented, and the associated implemented
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rich Tibbett wrote:
> Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> Richard, Marcos - what is the plan to get Widget Updates spec LC ready
>> (see [1] for LC requirements)?
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-updates/
>
> I think Marcos
registration. I'm afraid that I
> simply don't have the bandwidth to handle that at this point. My preferred
> approach would be to skip URI registration and register it after it's
> successfully deployed as a de facto scheme but that's neither nice nor proper
>
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:22 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> Want to add dereferencing model. Can be a new spec layered on top.
>> This would still be in scope of the charter, so it would not be an
>> issue to create a new sp
g in [1].
I was intending to modify the test suite and implementation reports
template to do that. Some tests in Dig Sig and P&C are already marked
as type="optional".
At the end of the day, it is people that evaluate conformance and
ratify specs... so it's not really a technical issue.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/test-methodology/
[1] needs so love. Will update it soon.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
way to do this. Publishing a
spec is just a formality which can lead to discussion.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:12 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2011, at 8:57 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> Hi Brad,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Hill, Brad wrote:
>>> Well, my disagreement is not with its content; I think we should not mov
to be an issue? I personally
don't have a position on this, I'm just really interested because I had
this come up in other (proprietary) contexts.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On 7/11/11 8:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On the other hand, we should
Hi,
Just noting that 4 implementations now pass the widgets interface test
suite (and a 5th passes 97%). The implementation report is:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On 7/13/11 5:08 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
Hi,
In my attempt to get our conformance level from 97% to 100%, I've been
trying to implement the Storage Event requirement for widget.preferences
in the Widget API spec [1]. I'm using the following JS code injected
into the widget page to raise the event
On 7/1/11 4:46 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos
I have added a comment in our tracker tool regarding addition of an
informative reference and link to XML Signature Best Practices to
Introduction/References of XML Signature 1.1 (and implicitly XML
Signature 2.0 as well).
See LC-2504
On 7/13/11 7:46 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 13 Jul 2011, at 16:41, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 7/13/11 5:08 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
Hi,
In my attempt to get our conformance level from 97% to 100%, I've been
trying to implement the Storage Event requirement for widget.preferences
in the W
e given to them not the public.
As above. Developers are not the only audience: this important for
other people/groups.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
he HTML specification (with real authoritative legitimacy being
determined by which version actually gets implemented and by who).
It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as to which
spec they cite regardless of the reason.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> > Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
>>
>> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems
>
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 9:23 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> It should be left to the editor's (or working group) discretion as
>>>> >> to which spec they cite regardless of the reason.
l of quality and IPR assurances
- but the work will continue in both places regardless.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
hat would probably be fine.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
API specifications is larger than
> W3C...).
I don't think anyone was "objecting" (particularly not "the W3C",
which is just an innocent bystander); the question is if there is any
value/use case for module and is anyone really using it beyond what
could be done with pros
Approved! :) Thanks very much!
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:49 PM, wrote:
>
> Dear Marcos Caceres ,
>
> The XML Security Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on
> the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the XML Signature Syntax and Processing
> Version 1.1 publi
ument (i.e., HTML5's resolve URL
algorithms).
2. Added straw-man for behaving like HTTP (inspired by FileAPI's blob://)
3. Generalized the dereferencing algorithm so non P&C compliant runtimes can
use it.
I will continue doing a minor cleanup over the next week.
Kind regards,
Marcos
on and debate during
TPAC? I've said this a number of times, but I am getting to the point where I
no longer want to put anything on TR because I've seen how harmful that can be
(if I end up writing another spec at the W3C, I will not choose to publish it
on TR without HTML5-like "BIG RED WARNING" and only to meet the IPR
requirements… and continue to only link to editor's drafts).
Kind regards,
Marcos
gets and ApplicationCache from the
packaging section, can you please add View Mode Media Feature, Widget URI, and
the Widget Interface, and Widget updates to the list (as they are a standard
part of Widgets and implemented across some user agents… see implementation
reports where available).
On Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:14:50 +0200, Marcos Caceres
> mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> You can suggest a session on http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2011/SessionIdeas
> Depending on who attends it may
On Monday, September 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Anyway, my point was just that Philippe's statement that an "editor's
> draft" has "no special status" is false, and I stand by this: editors'
> drafts are the most up-to-date revisions of their respective specs. Since
> TR/ drafts
, but the W3C Process document seems to
codify this.
> bleeding edge quite often. It's a game of "who can have the latest and
> greatest first and the best".
Not always so. Other industries believe that having a stable reference point
will cut down their interop issues (specially for environments where it's
difficult to update software). I know, how ridiculous and illogical is that?!
Kind regards,
Marcos
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > ...
> > Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They
> > love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Marcos
>
> Are you and Ian suggesting we eliminate the publication of WD versions on the
> way to Rec and just keep the editors draft in TR space?
Yes
>
> A major implication relate
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 20:04, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Marcos, All,
>
> To clearly state that WebApps' work on the Widget Requirements and
> Widget Landscape documents has ended, I propose they be published as
> Working Group Notes:
>
> http://www.w3.o
Hi Dom,
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 19:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> Le samedi 03 septembre 2011 à 22:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> [sorry for the delay in responding]
>
> > Thank you for continuing to keep the document up to d
cases.
… now, more bla bla :)
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 16:00, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le vendredi 16 septembre 2011 à 21:36 +0700, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> > > I think they are actually not so different, and share many use cases.
> >
> > Ok,
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le samedi 17 septembre 2011 à 10:30 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> > shortcut: if you want to (incorrectly, IMO) continue to lump widgets
> > and app cache, then do so making it clear that this is
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as
> Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route,
> it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable
> for this spec)
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation
> but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of
> the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title)
> transient, so l
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation
> > but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the c
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon (mailto:ro...@berjon.com)> wrote:
> > Hi Charles,
> >
> > On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
> > > There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. I
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
> rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get
> any attention from a party that's clearly relevant only to have patents
request. Doing so allows this URI scheme to be used with
other technologies that rely on HTTP responses to function as intended, such as
[XMLHTTPRequest].
As always, comments welcomed.
Will probably sit on it for 2 weeks and then move it to LC.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcos Caceres
> mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between
> widget: and http: is the authority. And if that&#
m.
>
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Mark Baker (mailto:dist...@acm.org)> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Marcos Caceres > (mailto:w...@marcosc.com)> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcos Caceres
> > >
On Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 18:26 , Mark Baker wrote:
> > Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between
> > widget: and http: is the authority. And if that's the case, then
> > instead of (from your example);
> >
>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Marcos Caceres
> wrote:
>>> There are however many useful benefits in tying a packaged web application
>>> (using whatever packaging) to an origin, not the least of which is
&g
On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > On September 29, aLCWD of Web Sockets API was published:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-websockets-20110929/
> >
> > Please send all comments to public-webapps@w3.org
> > (m
On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-09-30 10:37, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, September 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > > On 2011-09-29 18:28, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > >
ebinos and WAC).
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to create a wiki page that defines how to
do this using some very generic examples. What would be great would be to see
how the prose maps to the IDL and how the IDL maps to a real object in Java
script… and also show how the DOM4 spec takes care of setting the code and the
message…. so, a "Exceptions and events for [Spec Writing] Dummies" would be
greatly appreciated (and will avoid a few common mistakes).
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
OfElements = document.getElementsByLang("en-us");
listOfElements[1].lang == "en";
listOfElements[0].lang == "en-us";
[lookup]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#page-2-12
--
Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, 5 October 2011 at 10:14, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Would it be possible to add something to DOM4 to allow one to find out what
> language (xml:lang) was inherited from up the chain, if any?
>
> Use cases:
>
> 1. I need to find elements of a particular type/
On Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Unless you're dealing with documents of incredible depth, walking up the tree
> should really not be all that costly. What's more, since you're dealing with
> a tree that doesn't change, you can walk the tree once and precompute
On Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/5/11 4:14 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > 1. I need to find elements of a particular type/name that are in a
> > particular language (in tree order), so that I can extract that information
> > to display
at we once took for granted
> (for example, having a dedicated exception such as FileException, etc.).
Robin took the initiative to create a skeleton:
http://test.w3.org/webapps/api-design/
Maybe we can do a quick breakout session with Anne and anyone else interested
during TPAC and fill it in. We just need quick bullet points and Robin and I
can add examples etc.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Friday, 21 October 2011 at 21:42, Ms2ger wrote:
> Hi Art, all,
>
> On 10/14/2011 09:27 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > The people working on the D3E spec (namely Jacob, Doug and Olli) propose
> > below that the spec be published as a Candidate Recommendation and this
> > is a CfC to do so:
> >
On Monday, 24 October 2011 at 20:33, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> In Marcos Caceres' objection [Objection-2], he asserts some of the
> overlaps and redundancies between D3E and DOM4 are confusing and
> requests the D3E spec clarify its relationship to DOM4. I encourage
> Marcos
("test2") === 'protected' && prefs.getItem("test3") ===
> '123abc'){
> Again, the test should indicate the preference is undefined, not null.
>
I agree with your changes (the tests are bad). If you want to go ahead and make
those changes, then please do so. Otherwise, I will update them in the next few
days. I'll ping the list (and you) once its done.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
lers just automagically appear in
the list of intent handlers.
--
Marcos Caceres
es what you want, but up to you to show that it doesn't do something you
want through a prototype (or similar) to do. If your prototype breaks down
because the intents system doesn't work without extensions, then we have
something to work from.
Agree?
--
Marcos Caceres
--
Marcos Caceres
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Rich Tibbett wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> >
> > > It's important to separate Intents as currently proposed and what
On Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 22:53, timeless wrote:
> #2 is obviously more exciting for vendors trying to proxy to non web
> things, but IMO that's an implementation detail or potentially a
> supplemental Note/Specification.
Agreed.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Monday, November 14, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
> I would like to point out that there could be other specifications out in
> the wild referencing XHR 1.
>
> This doesn't mean that you should not drop XHR 1, but would be good if the
> WG prepares a (short) note that gives the
On Friday, November 18, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
> and silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The
> deadline for comments is November 25 and all comments should be sent to
> public-webapps a
.org/community/native-web-apps/
Or please subscribe to our mailing list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-native-web-apps/
If you have any questions, please email me.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Storage{}
And hence:
readonly attribute Storage preferences;
Becomes:
readonly attribute WidgetStorage preferences;
In practice, the addition of WidgetStorage doesn't actually affect any
conforming runtimes (but allows a bunch of new Webkit ones to comply).
Kind regards,
On Monday, 21 November 2011 at 21:42, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 18:08 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > As part of LC, I've received quite a bit of offline feedback that because
> > of some issue in Webkit, it's difficult for implementers to reuse the
>
On Nov 21, 2011 11:29 PM, "Martin Kadlec" wrote:
>
> On Monday, 21 November 2011 2:18 PM, "James Robinson"
wrote:
>
> > XPath is dead on the web. Let's leave it that way.
> >
> > - James
>
> Why? XPath is in lot's of cases much more powerful than CSS selectors and
all browsers support it in some
On Monday, November 21, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, 21 November 2011 at 21:42, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2011, at 18:08 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > > As part of LC, I've received quite a bit of offline feedback that
would make programming its behavior
> more easy.
Because it's reflected as a new class. In Webkit, it seems, you can't have two
objects that implement Storage, but behave slightly differently. So, having
WidgetStorage frees Webkit implementers to have all the goodness of WebStorage,
but an object that stringyfies to [object WidgetStorage]… stupid, I know… but
c'est la vie.
--
Marcos Caceres
On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 11/21/11 12:08 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As part of LC, I've received quite a bit of offline feedback that because
> > of some issue in Webkit, it's difficult for implemente
On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 14:51 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > > The proposed change would require the spec going back to LC. Is that
> > > correct?
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know. The c
On Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 19:25, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Adrian proposed the old XHR(1) spec be published as a WG Note (to
> clearly state work on that spec has stopped) and this is a Call for
> Consensus to do so.
I object to doing so. It will just cause more confusion. Please lets on
On Tuesday, 6 December 2011 at 08:58, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just released a new version of “Standards for Web Applications on
> Mobile” that takes into account the latest changes in the open Web
> platform:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/mobile-web-app-state.html
>
On Wednesday, 7 December 2011 at 00:47, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 12/6/11 7:01 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > I'm also concerned at use of the terms "limited" and "very limited" to
> > label "current implementations" as being both subj
On Wednesday, 7 December 2011 at 09:51, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le mercredi 07 décembre 2011 à 00:01 +0000, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> > Although I think this document is quite informative, I again would
> > like to raise objections about lumping app cache and w
On Sunday, 11 December 2011 at 12:21, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:51:48 +0100, Glenn Adams (mailto:gl...@skynav.com)> wrote:
> > If the answer is that no item() method is implied, then does the use of
> > sequence in these newer specs entail dropping this method (with
> >
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> The current spec requires the opaque string in Blob URLs to be at least
> 36 characters in length [1]. Our implementation doesn't currently use a
> UUID and the length of the string is shorter than 36 characters. While
> I have
them to public-webapps by December 21 at the latest.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
> and silence will be assumed to be agreement with the proposal.
>
> (Given the end of the year publication blackout, if this CfC passes, the
> WD will
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 13:14 -0500, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> An other one was for the Director to decide to move the document forward
> anyway because W-DigSig doesn't depend on ECC.
>
> Thomas, any suggestion?
>
I person
to the AC etc, I'm rather pessimistic about a quick
> resolution.
That's fine. That just makes for a stronger case to put to the Director (or for
doing what Artb suggested, and moving the ECC to a future version of XML Dig
Sig).
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 21:06, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as the PAG chair of this XMLSEC PAG, let me tell you that support from the
> > industry in sor
On Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Brian LaMacchia wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Sorry for coming to this thread late (I'm on vacation) but I want to comment
> on a number of points raised during this thread:
>
> 1) Concerning the suggestion to move ECDSA out of XMLDSIG 1.1, that
> sugge
;ve personally
tested around 5 different runtimes (from WAC) and have never noticed any
performance issue at boot (no real difference then starting a native app or
anything I could perceive). Maybe I'm missing something?
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
without need to wait on the resolution of the
PAG... And the automatically benefits once the PAG sorts itself out. Simple
and beautiful! :)
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Thursday, December 15, 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
ing process": specs are buggy, tests are buggy,
and software is buggy… any of those can affect an conformance over time: the
are all living things).
Pretending that slapping a date on spec means anything is unhelpful (and
actually harmful, because all specs contain bugs and hence must be continuously
maintained).
--
Marcos Caceres
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> On 12/18/11 2:31 PM, "Marcos Caceres" wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>>> Undated references (what you are suggesting) has the MAJOR PROBLEM that
>>> i
On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
> On 18/12/11 20:31 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> >
> > > Undated references (what you are suggesting) has the MAJOR P
Jean-Claude,
On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
> Marcos
>
> You are replying beside the point everywhere.
> Please read again what Leonard wrote about undated references. Leonard
> is right.
I'm sorry, but Leonard is not correct: this
.
2. Pointing to /latest/
Pros:
- Always pointing to Rec
- Conformance always bound to latest Rec
Cons:
- As XML Dig Sig does not include SHA-256, this does not currently help
Widgets Dig Sig progress
- Conformance always bound to latest Rec
Kind regar
, as part of this living spec process, we maintain a living journal of
> deprecated APIs.
+1
Please see WebIDL's change logs… they are pretty good. I've had a few "Bob"
moments as described above, and the WebIDL logs have been wonderfully helpful
and informative.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 16:25, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Hi Art,
>
> the pessimistic XMLSECPAG chair told you that it wouldn't resolve within
> days.
> But I hope to have a clear view and plan by the end of January. Executing
> that
> plan may take some time. Plan is to resolve unti
elpful and I'm not sure I understand the urgency related to widgets
> apart from a desire to mark it as complete.
The urgency is just that (getting it to Rec).
But academically, the other arguments that were made are valid. Those were:
* a /latest/ location
* decupling algori
On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 16:18, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
> Marcos
>
> My expectation is that we should have a PAG update on progress in the first
> week of January (hopefully) and a timeline like Rigo noted, with full
> resolution of the iPR issue by March
On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 16:22, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 29 December 2011 at 16:18, frederick.hir...@nokia.com
> (mailto:frederick.hir...@nokia.com) wrote:
>
> > Marcos
> >
> > My expectation is that we should have a PAG updat
1 - 100 of 1426 matches
Mail list logo
