On March 14, 2014 at 9:58:59 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Jonas Sicking wrote:
However it does mean that we need to also have a way to define that
orientation should be completely unlocked. This is needed since the
manifest spec allows
On March 20, 2014 at 12:58:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. (jackalm...@gmail.com) wrote:
Agreed. The exact target isn't very important here, and so being
consistent with legacy event firing for the same system is probably
a good idea.
Agree. Let's go with consistency, even though it feels a bit
On April 2, 2014 at 6:51:06 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote:
* Manifest; led by Marcos; high priority issues, bugs, etc.
High-priority v1:
* orientation hinting
* Implementer interest
* should we freeze v1, go to LC?
V2 feature set:
* url scope
* service workers
* what
On April 3, 2014 at 4:38:41 PM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
Test suite:
None yet. No test suite coordinator at the moment.
I can create the test suite.
--
Marcos Caceres
On April 17, 2014 at 5:46:17 AM, Wang, Peter H (peter.h.w...@intel.com) wrote:
Hi all,
I’ve found a small error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/. In
“7.12.4 Example
of Usage”:
古老瓷地图
Ancient Chinese Maps
should be
古老中国地图
Ancient Chinese Maps
Thank you very much.
On April 17, 2014 at 12:21:06 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@nokia.com) wrote:
On 4/17/14 12:09 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On April 17, 2014 at 5:46:17 AM, Wang, Peter H (peter.h.w...@intel.com)
wrote:
Hi all,
I’ve found a small error in document http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets
):
[[
href=http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A//www.w3.org/TR/widgets/doc2=http%3A//dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/;differences
document
]]
Marcos - this should be updated or perhaps just removed.
yeah, removing it is fine I think.
/manifest-csp/
--
Marcos Caceres
or a bad thing that manifests don't have to be served from the same
origin as the web app itself.
It would indeed be great to get some more opinions about this.
[1] http://w3c.github.io/manifest/#obtaining-a-manifest
--
Marcos Caceres
On May 27, 2014 at 9:19:45 AM, Ben Francis (bfran...@mozilla.com) wrote:
I think a particular problem with having no defined scope for
apps is when you want to hyperlink from one web app to another.
A hyperlink with no specified target window will always open
in the browsing context
On May 27, 2014 at 2:30:32 PM, Jonas Sicking (jo...@sicking.cc) wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
The only way that gmail would allow my own app store to use its manifest
would be for
Google to include the HTTP header:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http
from custom stores.
It means one or two additional clicks for users to install an app - but we
assure that apps are always being installed from the source.
--
Marcos Caceres
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Marcos Caceres
w...@marcosc.comjavascript:;
wrote:
On May 27, 2014 at 2:30:32 PM, Jonas Sicking (jo...@sicking.cc) wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mounir Lamouri
mou...@lamouri.frjavascript:;
wrote:
Then, it might make sense to have the manifest same origin as the web
page because obviously making start_url same origin as the
progressing to Proposed Recommendation.
If a change is required in the HTML specification then it is more
likely that this would occur in HTML 5.1 [4].
Thanks Paul. Will be sure to address this before LC.
--
Marcos Caceres
On August 5, 2014 at 6:33:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
snip
This is great feedback - thanks for this Anne! I've captured each of the issues
you raised in the bug tracker on GH [1] (and cc'ed you on them). We will
address them in the next few days.
Hi Mark,
On August 6, 2014 at 5:22:01 AM, Mark Taylor (mark.s...@base88.com) wrote:
My main feedback/concerns is that it is currently as inherently inflexible as
the cache
manifest file, rendering it useless in many use cases:
Specification assumes that the entire app is self contained
On August 14, 2014 at 3:23:23 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux (d...@w3.org) wrote:
HTH,
It does! thank you. I've filed a bug for each on GH.
https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/issues/
Hope to fix 'em up soon!
On September 4, 2014 at 4:14:57 PM, Florian Bösch (pya...@gmail.com) wrote:
This is an issue to use, for a user.
- http://codeflow.org/issues/permissions.html
- http://codeflow.org/issues/permissions.jpg
This sets up an unrealistic straw-man. Are there any real sites that would need
to
--
Marcos Caceres
On September 4, 2014 at 4:24:56 PM, Florian Bösch (pya...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
This sets up an unrealistic straw-man. Are there any real sites that would
need to show all of the above all at the same time
On Friday, September 5, 2014, Kostiainen, Anssi anssi.kostiai...@intel.com
wrote:
On 04 Sep 2014, at 23:18, Marcos Caceres mar...@marcosc.com
javascript:; wrote:
Absolutely, we should be addressing them at the API level.
I guess you mean each API should address this in a way that fits
On September 10, 2014 at 12:43:02 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com)
wrote:
[ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication
between WebApps and TAG. ]
This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to
publish a new WD of the URL spec (on
On Thursday, September 11, 2014, Robin Berjon ro...@w3.org
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ro...@w3.org'); wrote:
On 10/09/2014 18:48 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
This is a formal objection to publication of this specification.
The rationale for the objection was already sent to the wwwprocess list
On September 24, 2014 at 8:43:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Anne - would you please confirm if your comments have been adequately
addressed?
I disagree with the prioritization of creating a snapshot over
On September 18, 2014 at 6:53:38 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, at 08:28, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I think it's likely to result in many implementation bugs if we rely
on this being defined buried inside an algorithm rather than at least
mentioned at the
On May 6, 2015 at 2:38:06 PM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
Marcos|Mounir, do you two have any thoughts on this?
I agree with Jonas: we should delegate the check to the Permissions
API. However, I don't see how I can enforce that if the Push API doesn't
want to. I would
On Friday, May 8, 2015, Anders Rundgren anders.rundgren@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2015-05-08 14:50, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On 5/8/15 8:47 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
On 2015-05-08 14:32, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
no objection, the referenced document is a Recommendation, isn't it?
On Friday, May 8, 2015, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote:
[ + Marcos and Frederick ]
Hi Andrew,
The group stopped working on XML Digital Signature for Widgets several
years ago and there is no plan to resume work (except to process errata as
required).
Marcos, Frederick
(please cc me if you want a response from me. I don't subscribe to *any*
mailing lists anymore.)
On October 22, 2015 at 6:32:44 PM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote:
> what, if anything, is blocking the spec's progression;
No blockers. Just waiting on implementations.
> what, if
On October 12, 2015 at 8:23:25 AM, Arthur Barstow (art.bars...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On October 10, the consortium formerly started the Web Platform WG
> [Charter] thus terminating WebApps.
>
> My expectation is this change will have little to no impact on any work
> started in
o had this debate 10001 times too... but we need to
do something folks, as the division between the forks and the reality
of how web specs are developed is hurting everyone :(
Kind regards,
Marcos
On August 16, 2016 at 6:31:31 PM, Zhen Zhang (izgz...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a PR on GitHub regarding some issues of wording in current File API
> spec: https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/pull/42
> , but nobody ever responded me there.
> I wonder if I should discuss the patch somewhere
1101 - 1132 of 1132 matches
Mail list logo
