Lisa,
If you want to setup an adhoc discussion on your proposal, please let me
know and I will join.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Apr 22, 2013 9:42 AM, "Charles McCathie Nevile"
wrote:
> Hi Lisa,
>
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:52:38 +0300, lisa.seeman
> wrote:
>
> Over
.html
Bryan Sullivan
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working Draft of
> their spec and this is a Call for Consensus to do so, using the following
> spec as the basis <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/d
s.
Thanks
Bryan Sullivan
[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
On 9/27/12 3:09 AM, "EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA" wrote:
>On 27 sep 2012 at 05:51:51, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback, Art. I've responded below. I will work on a new
&
h SMS".
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
From: Arthur Barstow
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 09:40:28 -0400
To: public-webapps
Subject: Reminder: May 1-2 f2f meeting: registration deadline is April 16
Resent-From:
Resent-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:40:49 +
Reminder: April 16 is the deadline to register f
t; b) Don't waste bandwidth.
> c) Don't use the more expensive connection when a less expensive
connection is also available.
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> what are the qualitative differences (if any) between these three use
cases?
>
> O
chat using video/audio or just text and he wants to make sure
they can reach him irrespective of what device and what network he is
connected at any given time.
Comments/questions?
--
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
API draft proposal, and we can
discuss the other alternatives noted below.
Comments are welcome.
Bryan Sullivan
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
> Hi Art and Chaals,
>
> If possible (depending upon the Webapps agenda fullness) I would like
> to propose a 30-6
loping for submission to Webapps at the right time.
--
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
Thanks for the explanation and examples. I've got it now. I agree it would
help if the spec was clearer and had some more examples. I will see what I
can offer.
Bryan
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
>
>
newbie-ish
questions.
Bryan
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
>
>> That would seem to be the obvious way to access it, but does not seem to
>> be working for current implementations of eventsource. Tha
Hi all,
I am trying to develop a test for eventsource, and am finding that when I
include an "event" field in an eventsource stream, the onmessage events are
never fired (if I don't send the "event" field, just "data" fields, the
events *are* fired). This occurs in FF, Safari, and Chrome (latest e
Sep 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the help.
>>
>> So when you say "the name of the event", how in JavaScript do I access the
>> name of the event, e.g. to test it? Accessing the data (event.data) works,
>> but how do access the n
the event name.
Thanks,
Bryan
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
> > The event type for the MessageEvent is "message" (in all browsers I have
> tested, and there is no other "type" attribute d
Hi all,
Trying to implement a test for eventsource, it's unclear to me in the
sequence below, how item 4 is to be implemented and coded for by a
developer:
(extract from http://www.w3.org/TR/eventsource/)
When the user agent is required to *dispatch the event*, then the user agent
must act as fo
.
Re objections to this feature, when I referred to "W3C" I was of course
meaning the consensus of the Webapps group, which represents the W3C in this
decision.
Bryan
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
&g
, why would W3C
object to it being a part of the Web IDL spec (if it is not used in W3C
specs then fine, but the universe of Web API specifications is larger than
W3C...).
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
On 8/12/11 5:46 AM, "Marcos Caceres" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:41
Hi Art,
+1 for publication of the LCWD.
Bryan
On 8/10/11 7:24 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote:
> Given Hixie's recent set of bug fixes, the Server-sent Events spec now
> has zero bugs. As such, it appears this spec is ready to proceed on the
> Recommendation track and this is a Call for Consensus t
Art,
We support the LCWD publication.
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
On 8/10/11 4:35 AM, "Arthur Barstow" wrote:
> Given Hixie's recent set of bug fixes, the Web Workers spec now has zero
> bugs. As such, it appears this spec is ready to proceed on the
> Recommendation
Art,
We support the LCWD publication. WebStorage is a key dependency on the
widgets specs and with commercial products already deployed which depend
upon it (various implementations eg per BONDI and WAC, with many more coming
very soon) it is important to finalize this spec.
Bryan Sullivan | AT
under Opera 11.01.
Looking into the other normative requirements, I¹d like the group¹s input on
what other requirements in the Widgets URI spec would be considered
high-priority for an ³Acid test² level of support validation.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
WAC2_WS1410.wgt
Description: Bi
Hi,
Can anyone point to an example of how to use HTTP redirect-based protocols
such as OAuth with widgets? There seem to be issues with the use of these
protocols due to the difference between widgets and browser-based webapps,
in particular with the two aspects:
* widgets cannot access network res
21 matches
Mail list logo
