RE: [fileapi] Pull Request on GitHub

2016-08-17 Thread Adrian Bateman
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:38:59, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote: > Sorry about that. Somehow that PR slipped through the cracks. I've commented > on the PR. > > Anybody knows what the deal is with the ipr check? What makes it fail, and if > it fails who is supposed to do what to not make it fail?

WG Decision on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

2016-08-17 Thread Adrian Bateman
The chairs have published details of the Working Group decision on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension in HTML. In short, most of the CfC carried without objection but there were some objections related to the longdesc examples. For convenience, the decision text is pasted

RE: Art steps down - thank you for everything

2016-01-28 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 7:46 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: > Now we are three co-chairs, we will work between us to fill Art's shoes. > It won't be easy. > > Thanks Art for everything you've done for the group for so long. Thanks Art. You were there from the first day I showed up at

RE: Exception APIs feedback

2014-04-29 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Both http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking- dnt.html#exceptions-javascript-api and http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking- dnt.html#exceptions-ww-javascript-api are inadequate. They need to

RE: Passsword managers and autocomplete='off'

2014-01-03 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Joel Weinberger j...@chromium.org wrote: But it would suck if the result is that they create their own form fields using divs and/or contenteditable. That's true, although some things like that

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Shadow DOM; deadline May 9

2012-05-06 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports this CfC. On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:20 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: As discussed during WebApps' May 1 f2f meeting [2], the Shadow DOM spec is ready for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) publication and this a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:

RE: CfC: to stop work on XBL2; deadline May 8

2012-05-05 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports this call. On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 9:26 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: During WebApps' May 1 discussion about Web Components, a proposal was made ([1],[2]) to stop work on the XBL2 spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do do. If you have any comments or concerns about this

RE: [FileAPI] Blob protocol version - is this needed?

2012-02-02 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:34 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: Greetings Adrian, Sorry for the delay in responding to this email. Strictly speaking, we could remove the Blob Protocol Version (BLV) [1]. It isn't returned in getAllResponseHeaders. BLV 's purpose was in case the protocol

RE: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-27 Thread Adrian Bateman
I will wait to see the proposed text but in the meantime point out that Microsoft has regulatory obligations that require us to direct customers to these specifications until such time as there is a completed Recommendation that succeeds them. As a consequence we want to make sure these

RE: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

2012-01-24 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft is open to adding this to the WebApps charter. We certainly want to see work on a speech API for user agents proceed at W3C. Our priorities for the API are 1) a procedural (JavaScript) API and 2) a declarative syntax for speech recognition and text-to-speech in HTML. We think WebApps

RE: [FileAPI] Length of the opaque string for blob URLs

2011-12-14 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:38 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: 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

RE: [FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal

2011-12-14 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:52:04 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: This means that you can do something like: imgElement.src = URL.createObjectURL(blob,false) and not worry about having to call

RE: [FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal

2011-12-14 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:52:04 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: This means that you can do something like: imgElement.src

RE: [FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal

2011-12-14 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:46 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: We can certainly talk through some of these issues, though the amount of work we'd need to do doesn't go down. Our proposal is a small change to the lifetime management of the Blob URL and was relatively simple (for us) to

[stream-api] Editor's Draft for Streams API

2011-12-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
Following the discussion we had at TPAC [1], we have uploaded our draft as an editor's draft to Mercurial: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm This is just a starting point for discussion and we're looking forward to incorporating feedback as we move forward. We know

[FileAPI] Blob protocol version - is this needed?

2011-12-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
The current spec defines the Blob Protocol Version [1]. Our current implementation doesn't require a protocol version and the way protocol handlers are defined in Internet Explorer does require this. I don't know if this is ever exposed in the web platform. The spec says that this should be

[FileAPI] Length of the opaque string for blob URLs

2011-12-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
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 no problem with the recommendation to use UUIDs in the spec, since it isn't

[FileAPI] Remove readAsBinaryString?

2011-12-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
Another topic that came up at TPAC was readAsBinaryString [1]. This method predates support for typed arrays in the FileAPI and allows binary data to be read and stored in a string. This is an inefficient way to store data now that we have ArrayBuffer and we'd like to not support this method. At

[FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal

2011-12-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
At TPAC [1,2] I described our proposal for adding an isReusable flag to createObjectURL. A common pattern we have seen is the need for a blob URL for a single use (for example, loading into an img element) and then revoking the URL. This requires a fair amount of boilerplate code to handle the

RE: CfC: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

2011-12-01 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:12 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:29:37 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It appears Adrian is proposing: .../TR/XMLHttpRequest/ be a WG Note but it's not clear to me what version of XHR would be used: the

RE: Add PointerLock and Gamepad APIs to WebApps' charter; deadline December 1

2011-12-01 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:16 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Below, Darin proposes the Pointer Lock [PL] (formerly known as Mouse Lock) spec and the Gamepad [GP] spec be added to the Web Applications WG's charter and not the Web Events WG's charter. This is a Call for Consensus to accept

RE: publish new WD of XHR; deadline December 5

2011-11-30 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:43 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Anne completed his merge XHR and XHR2 merge and the new History section includes information about the merge. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new WD of XHR using the following ED (not yet pub ready) as the

RE: We just ran out of time ... [Was: Re: Component Model f2f: Actionable things]

2011-11-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 5:37 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On Nov 3, 2011, at 05:38 , Arthur Barstow wrote: Well, we may get together more frequently than just the annual TPAC meeting week. If folks think that would be useful (e.g. in 6 months), please speak up and we can take it from there.

RE: Identifying Test Spec Editors; deadline Nov 11

2011-11-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, November 04, 2011 4:59 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: One of the topics discussed this week was to designate a Test Spec Editor(s) for each of our specs. We're supportive of this idea. (BTW, the title of Test Spec Editor is a bit of a straw-man, so proposals for other titles are also

RE: [File API] Issue 182 about OperationNotAllowed

2011-09-30 Thread Adrian Bateman
to drive that change. Cheers, Adrian. On Thursday, September 29, 2011 3:28 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 6/6/11 4:36 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: On Monday, June 06, 2011 5:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Arun, Jonas, All, The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so

Draft Proposal for Streams API

2011-09-22 Thread Adrian Bateman
There has been discussion in this group now and again about the need for stream support as part of the File APIs including recently in the threads about Streaming Blobs [1] and XHR streaming [2]. I've also had several private conversations with members of the WG about the need we see for this

RE: publish a LCWD of Web Socket API; deadline September 27

2011-09-20 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports this call. On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the Web Socket API using the following document as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ As noted in [1], this spec

New tests submitted by Microsoft for WebApps specs

2011-09-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
Today we shipped Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 Platform Preview 3 as part of the Windows 8 Developer Preview. Alongside this release, we have submitted interop tests for several WebApps specs for review by the working group: WebSockets API (101 tests/assertions) Changeset:

RE: rename DOM Core to DOM4; deadline Sept 9

2011-09-08 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:53 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: It appears the majority of the people that voiced an opinion on this thread prefer DOM4. If anyone objects to DOM4, please speak up by September 9 at the latest and include the rationale for your objection as well as an

RE: publish new WD of DOM Core; deadline August 10

2011-08-16 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, August 15, 2011 2:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:21:46 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:06:58 +0200, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: The name was changed. We weren't terribly keen on the change

RE: how to organize the DOM specs [Was: CfC: publish new WD of DOM Core]

2011-08-16 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: [ Topic changed to how to organize the group's DOM specs ... ] Hi Adrian, Anne, Doug, Jacob, All, The WG is chartered to do maintenance on the DOM specs so a question for us is how to organize the DOM specs, in particular, whether

RE: Rescinding the DOM 2 View Recommendation?

2011-08-12 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:18 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Anne, Ms2ger, All, Anne and others proposed in [Proposal] the DOM 2 View Recommendation [D2V] be rescinded. The rescinding process is defined in the Process Document [Rescind]. However, Ian Jacobs just indicated in IRC

RE: publish Last Call WD of Progress Events; deadline August 2

2011-08-02 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports this CfC. On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 7:13 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: The pre-LC comment period for Progress Events resulted in no comments [1]. As such, Anne proposes a new LC be published and this is a CfC to do so: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/ This CfC

RE: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

2011-07-25 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, July 25, 2011 1:32 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP and it doesn't

RE: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

2011-07-21 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:26:21 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: What do others (Anne?, Maciej?, ...) think about this issue? I don't know enough about the WebSocket protocol, but optional web platform features

RE: [websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

2011-07-21 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 12:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: For platform features that directly affect web developers' pages that might sometimes be true. However, compression is also optional in HTTP and it doesn't appear to have caused problems

RE: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData

2011-07-18 Thread Adrian Bateman
-- base64 encoding otherwise only works on DOMString. I'd like to see both proposals implemented... Then I get everything! On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: It requires more work for us. Our createObjectURL doesn't require that abstraction. The difference

RE: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData

2011-07-18 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, July 18, 2011 12:52 PM, Michael Nordman wrote: The problem is around naming the binary parts attached to multi-part-form-encoded FormData. I think I'm in favor of the more direct solution to this problem, providing a FormData.append() variant that optionally  allows the caller to

RE: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData

2011-07-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On 11 July 2011 10:53, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: Some content management systems use the original filename by default when storing files in document libraries. It's certainly a lesser use case but seems like

RE: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData

2011-07-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
From: Charles Pritchard Sent: 11-Jul-11 12:03 PM To: Adrian Bateman Cc: Jonas Sicking; Anne van Kesteren; Julian Reschke; Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo; Webapps WG Subject: Re: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData getFile could work with dataTransfer for dropping files onto the desktop

RE: [FileAPI] FileReader.readAsXXX when pased null

2011-07-08 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:21 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 7/6/11 10:13 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: There was a recent change in Web IDL which made interface types (like the readAsXXX argument types) not include null by default, and if you want to allow null, to write it as “Type?”.

[websockets] Making optional extensions mandatory in the API (was RE: Getting WebSockets API to Last Call)

2011-07-08 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, July 08, 2011 1:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: 12917 - deflate-stream should be an optional extension when establishing a connection Resolved, WontFix MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We strongly disagree with the API spec overruling the protocol spec on what is optional in the protocol. The

RE: publish Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL; deadline July 7

2011-07-07 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports publishing a Last Call working draft of the Web IDL spec. We believe that the spec is feature complete and meets the requirements below. While we have a few reservations about Exceptions and share some of the concerns voiced in the separate thread on that topic, we believe that

[websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

2011-07-07 Thread Adrian Bateman
We're keen to resolve the remaining issues with the WebSockets API and have a timetable to get to Candidate Recommendation. From informal conversations we've had, we believe other browser vendors share this goal. I think the current WebSocket API is feature complete and meets the requirements

RE: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

2011-07-07 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 3:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: 12917 - deflate-stream should be an optional extension when establishing a connection Resolved, WontFix MICROSOFT PROPOSAL: We strongly disagree

RE: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData

2011-07-06 Thread Adrian Bateman
Just catching up with this thread. We ran into the same problem last week while investigating FormData and XHR. Since FormData is designed to allow XHR to interact with existing form end-points that usually required a navigation, we've found that few of them have been tested with empty

[FileAPI] FileReader.readAsXXX when pased null

2011-07-06 Thread Adrian Bateman
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#reading-a-file What is the expected behaviour for FileReader.readAsXXX(null)? Currently I think both IE10 and Chrome fail silently and there are no events fired whereas Firefox appears to throw an internal NS_ERROR_INVALID_POINTER exception. The spec

RE: RfC: moving Web Storage to WG Note; deadline June 29

2011-06-27 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:24 PM, James Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the spec as

RE: [Bug 12913] New: Close() should throw the same exception as send() for unpaired surrogates

2011-06-10 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, June 10, 2011 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Adrian - this bug is for the Web Sockets API spec (and not Web Storage), correct? On Jun/8/2011 1:21 PM, ext bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12913 Yes - corrected now, thanks!

RE: [websockets] Reintroducing onerror

2011-06-08 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: This check-in [1] reintroduces the onerror handler that was removed previously [2]. Since, in general, WebSocket protocol errors are fatal and result in onclose, what is the purpose of adding

RE: [websockets] Reintroducing onerror

2011-06-07 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote: We have removed onerror from our implementation since the previous change and it's frustrating trying track against the spec with unexpected updates. That's the cost of being on the bleeding

RE: Publishing an update of File API spec

2011-06-06 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, June 06, 2011 5:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi Arun, Jonas, All, The last publication of the File API spec [ED] was last October so it would be good to publish a new Working Draft in w3.org/TR/. Since Tracker shows 0 bugs for the spec [Tracker] and the ED does not appear to

[websockets] Binary support changes

2011-05-27 Thread Adrian Bateman
I'm pleased to see the changes in the WebSockets API for binary message support. I'm a little confused by this text: When a WebSocket object is created, its binaryType IDL attribute must be set to the Blob interface object associated with the same global object as the WebSocket

RE: [websockets] Binary support changes

2011-05-27 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, May 27, 2011 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: However, I think there might be another solution to this whole situation. There really is no reason that only binary data can be received as a Blob. Getting data as a Blob is useful any time you're dealing with a large chunk of data where

RE: [websockets] Binary support changes

2011-05-27 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, May 27, 2011 4:30 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: For example, what is an implementation supposed to do if a page does: ws.binaryType = otherwindow.ArrayBuffer or otherwindow.useThis(ws); with other window containing function

[websockets] Constructor vs. open()

2011-05-27 Thread Adrian Bateman
As I proposed in March [1], we think it makes sense to separate the WebSocket constructor from the operation to initiate the network operation. We proposed a separate open() method similar to XHR. This allows a WebSocket object to be constructed and initialised prior to communication. We think

RE: CfC: WebApps testing process; deadline April 20

2011-04-20 Thread Adrian Bateman
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications in the WebApps increase in maturity. I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh raised. Apologies for the lateness of these

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-04-18 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: Yes, we could live with it but the semantics are more complex. Is this the same as calling abort() then readAsXXX()? Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-04-18 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, April 18, 2011 12:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Yes. I.e. the semantics of readAsX is basically: readAsX(...) {   if (requestInProgress

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-04-15 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: FileReader is extremely similar to XMLHttpRequest. The main difference is in how you initiate the request (.open/.send vs. .readAsX). This similarity is even getting stronger now that XHR gets .result. So I think there are good

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-04-15 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, April 15, 2011 12:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 4/15/11 2:57 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: With this in mind, I don't personally have a strong feeling either way between having to call abort() explicitly or having readAsXXX implicitly call abort(). I've discussed it with others

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-04-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, April 11, 2011 8:28 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 3/31/11 6:12 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: I think it's cleaner and simpler just to throw. FileReader and XHR are already different enough that a bit more, as long as it's a usability improvement, isn't a big deal. The efficiency

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-04-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote: In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional burden on the developer (to catch, for example). I don't think so. I think that calling

RE: publish new Working Draft of Indexed Database API; deadline April 16

2011-04-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Saturday, April 09, 2011 4:23 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: The Editors of the Indexed Database API would like to publish a new Working Draft of their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html If one agrees with this

RE: [websockets] What needs to be done before the spec is LC ready?

2011-04-05 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:27 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, What needs to be done before the WebSocket API is LC ready? Bugzilla has three open bugs for this spec: 1. API for send/receive of binary data? Current IETF protocol drafts have binary type. Consider typed arrays

RE: [FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-03-31 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:19 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 3/30/11 2:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Adrian Batemanadria...@microsoft.com wrote: Is there a reason for the current spec text? I don't know the original rationale, but in the absence of any

[FileAPI] Result of calling MultipleReads on FileReader

2011-03-28 Thread Adrian Bateman
text? Thanks, Adrian. -- Adrian Bateman Program Manager - Internet Explorer - Microsoft Corporation Phone: +1 (425) 538 5111 Email: mailto:adria...@microsoft.com

RE: publish Last Call Working Draft of Progress Events spec; deadline March 7

2011-03-09 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports this. From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:08 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish Last Call Working Draft of Progress Events spec; deadline March 7 Given no comments

RE: publish Last Call Working Draft of Web Workers; deadline March 7

2011-03-09 Thread Adrian Bateman
Apologies for missing the March 7 deadline. We tried to carry out a detailed pre-Last Call review and have the following feedback. Microsoft would like to discuss these points before moving the Last Call. Thanks, Adrian. Feedback on latest draft of Web Workers Based on our understanding of

RE: to stop work on Programmable HTTP Caching and Serving spec; deadline March 10

2011-03-09 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports this CfC. From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:26 AM To: public-webapps Cc: Mark Nottingham; Julian Reschke; Nikunj Mehta Subject: CfC: to stop work on Programmable HTTP Caching

RE: publish a new Working Draft of DOM Core; comment deadline March 2

2011-02-28 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, February 25, 2011 1:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: The idea is to provide a better definition of the events model at a more appropriate location. I do not think DOM Level 3 Events is the right way forward, but I am happy to work in parallel to see which turns out better in the

RE: publish a new Working Draft of DOM Core; comment deadline March 2

2011-02-24 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:21 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:   http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html As such, this

Binary data in WebSockets API (was RE: [Bug 12102] New: WebSocket protocol update time)

2011-02-24 Thread Adrian Bateman
As we've been updating our WebSockets prototype [1] in line with the latest protocol changes we've been thinking about how the binary support that the protocol now includes should be reflected in the API. I added the following comment to the bug: At Microsoft, we've been reviewing how the

RE: publish a new Working Draft of DOM Core; comment deadline March 2

2011-02-24 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:37 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:26:19 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: I'm concerned about the working group endorsing a working draft with phrasing like The timeStamp attribute must be useless. I understand

RE: Structured clone in WebStorage

2010-11-29 Thread Adrian Bateman
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 clone algorithm rather than strings.  And yet there isn't a single implementation who's implemented this.

RE: Discussion of File API at TPAC in Lyon

2010-11-16 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:11 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Tuesday, November 16, 2010, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:35:05 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Ok, here is what I'll propose as the final solution: FileAPI will define the

RE: Discussion of File API at TPAC in Lyon

2010-11-12 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:47 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Oh, definitely, we still need the createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL functions. Sorry, that was probably unclear. However we're still left without a place to put them. Maybe it's as simple as putting them on the document object? That

RE: FPWD of Web Messaging; deadline November 13

2010-11-09 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports publication of a FPWD of Web Messaging. On Saturday, November 06, 2010 11:49 AM, 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

RE: to publish Web SQL Database as a Working Group Note; deadline November 13

2010-11-09 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports publication as a Working Group Note. On Saturday, November 06, 2010 5:35 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: During WebApps's November 1 gathering, participants discussed the Web SQL Database spec:   http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-webapps-minutes.html#item09 [...] As such,

RE: Blob/File naming

2010-09-07 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:46 AM, Chris Prince wrote: 1. Most people that I talk to dislike the name Blob, much less having it spread to things like BlobReader. I could maybe understand this if blob were a new term we were inventing. But it's not. It's a well-known computer

Blob/File naming

2010-08-31 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, August 30, 2010 1:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote: *sigh.  Naming continues to be hard.  Not everyone's thrilled with the proliferation of Blob in the API [1] including other major implementors (my co-editor

RE: Lifetime of Blob URL

2010-07-13 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, July 12, 2010 2:31 PM, Darin Fisher wrote: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David Levin le...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: I read point #5 to be only about surviving the start of a navigation. As a web developer

RE: Lifetime of Blob URL

2010-07-12 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:40 PM, David Levin wrote: On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: Hi Arun, I think the updated URL section reflects a good compromise. We might want to call out explicitly that opaque string should not include recognisable

RE: Lifetime of Blob URL

2010-07-12 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, July 12, 2010 8:24 AM, David Levin wrote: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: Making the blob url identical to the lifetime of the blob itself would expose when garbage collection takes place and in general could lead to easy to make

RE: Lifetime of Blob URL

2010-07-12 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, July 12, 2010 9:32 AM, David Levin wrote: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: The behaviour would have to be explicitly specified and not left to depend on indeterminate browser implementations. Yes. Unfortunately, another way of saying

Lifetime of Blob URL

2010-07-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, June 28, 2010 2:47 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 6/23/10 9:50 AM, Jian Li wrote: I think encoding the security origin in the URL allows the UAs to do the security origin check in place, without routing through other authority to get the origin information that might cause the

RE: Updates to File API

2010-06-22 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, June 11, 2010 11:18 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com It's not clear to me the benefit of encoding the origin into the URL. Do we expect script

RE: Updates to File API

2010-06-22 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 6/22/10 8:44 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote: I think it makes more sense for the URL to be opaque and let user agents figure out the optimal way of implementing origin and other checks. I think it may be important to define

RE: Updates to File API

2010-06-22 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:40 PM, David Levin wrote: I agree with you Adrian that it makes sense to let the user agent figure out the optimal way of implementing origin and other checks. A logical step from that premise is that the choice/format of the namespace specific string should be

RE: Updates to File API

2010-06-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:27 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote: Indeed, the URL scheme seems to be more sort of implementation details. Different browser vendors can choose the appropriate scheme, like Mozilla ships with moz-filedata. How do you think?

RE: Updates to File API and blob url schemes

2010-06-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, June 11, 2010 7:22 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On Jun 11, 2010, at 15:43 , Adrian Bateman wrote: Do you think the URL scheme should be specified for each use of Blob or more broadly? For example, Blob is used in the File Reader API but also possibly in the Capture API in a different

RE: Updates to File API

2010-06-11 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote: On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote: In addition, we're thinking it will probably be a good practice to encode the security origin in the blob URL scheme, like

RE: [cors] Simplify CORS Headers (ISSUE-89)

2010-05-26 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: In IE, we only support Access-Control-Allow-Origin and combining with other values

RE: [cors] Simplify CORS Headers (ISSUE-89)

2010-05-24 Thread Adrian Bateman
In IE, we only support Access-Control-Allow-Origin and combining with other values (albeit optional ones) that we don't support might be misleading. It also introduces some additional parsing that changes the behaviour from a simple comparison to a more complex parse and then compare. We

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

2010-01-20 Thread Adrian Bateman
At Microsoft, we don't believe the spec is quite ready for Last Call. Based on our prototyping work, we're preparing some additional feedback that we think is more substantive than would be appropriate for Last Call comments. I anticipate that we will be able to post this feedback to the

RE: to publish new Working Draft of Indexed Database API; deadline December 21

2009-12-22 Thread Adrian Bateman
. On Dec 21, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: On Monday, December 21, 2009 6:43 PM, I wrote: Microsoft supports publishing a new Working Draft. However, there appears to be a problem with the Respec.js script at http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/. Apparently, the script

RE: to publish new Working Draft of Indexed Database API; deadline December 21

2009-12-21 Thread Adrian Bateman
Microsoft supports publishing a new Working Draft. However, there appears to be a problem with the Respec.js script at http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/. On Monday, December 14, 2009 12:54 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a new Working Draft of

RE: to publish new Working Draft of Indexed Database API; deadline December 21

2009-12-21 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Monday, December 21, 2009 6:43 PM, I wrote: Microsoft supports publishing a new Working Draft. However, there appears to be a problem with the Respec.js script at http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/. Apparently, the script takes some time to run (at least when I tried it in

RE: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December

2009-12-15 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1.

RE: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note

2009-11-20 Thread Adrian Bateman
On Friday, November 20, 2009 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: ...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue

  1   2   >