Please share it with the rest of the group. Thanks!
Sincerely,
James M. Greene
On Jun 15, 2015 5:48 PM, "Kelvin Poon" wrote:
> Thank you for your interest Arthur.
> I have drafted up a more detailed implementation doc and shared it with
> you and Hallvord.
>
> Please
On Jun 11, 2015 2:02 PM, "Elliott Sprehn" wrote:
>
> I don't think the clipboard should forbid inserting image data, there's
so many ways to compromise desktop software. ex. pasting text/html into
Mail.app might even do it. This API shouldn't be trying to prevent that.
+1, thank you!
~~James
sn't seem like there would be any reasonable way
to scrub it.
Sincerely,
James M. Greene
On Jun 11, 2015 3:14 AM, "Florian Bösch" wrote:
> Oh, also while you're on crippling things, please also exclude copying any
> text that contains "http://:"; cause that borks skype.
>
ser isn’t required to handle it or
> prevented from handling it, it can included to make it both readable and
> writable by script. I haven’t seen vender pushback, but I haven’t been
> involved for as long as some.
>
>
>
> *From:* James M. Greene [mailto:james.m.gre...@gmail.com]
's context menu?
If not, how is that protection/prevention achieved today? Could the same
process to applied to outgoing copy/cut operations and incoming paste
operations?
Sincerely,
James M. Greene
On Jun 9, 2015 2:19 PM, "Daniel Cheng" wrote:
> I'm not against conside
spec changes may be fleeting
Sincerely,
James M. Greene
On Apr 21, 2015 7:53 PM, "Ryan Seddon" wrote:
> If we did that, authors could not use synthetic clipboard events for
>> anything - right? I'm assuming that authors are going to find use cases for
>>
Hallvord --
That behavior is really all I wanted, i.e. "don't let the browser
discard/ignore valid RTF clipboard data".
I would also echo Paul's thoughts: this sounds good but is there any
OS/browser-level sanitization process necessary? I would be curious to
hear from Ben if Microsoft already h
/github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/659#issuecomment-94606647
[2]: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/659#issuecomment-94626893
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <
hst...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at
006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html#writing-contents-to-the-clipboard
Sincerely,
James M. Greene
On Feb 11, 2015 3:15 PM, "Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen" <
hst...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:34 PM, James M. Greene > wrote:
>
>> We never really came
The current spec still leaves me a bit unclear about if implementors must
include the ability to feature detect Clipboard API support, which I think
is a critical requirement.
In particular, I *need* to be able to detect support for the Clipboard API
(click-to-copy support, in particular) in advan
We never really came to a decision on if RTF ("application/rtf") should be
listed as a mandatory MIME type but the general consensus seemed to be
leaning toward "yes":
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013OctDec/0197.html
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at
Here is an additional past discussion of this topic:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JanMar/0232.html
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Florian Bösch wrote:
> I had an Android device, but now I have an iPhone. In addition to the
>> popup pro
I admittedly haven't been following the Custom Elements spec, so forgive if
my point of view has already been discussed and rejected but... I
definitely agree that this naming seems very inconsistent with the rest of
the Web Platform.
I would have expected to have these handlers configured via
`ad
Regardless of protocol, a site that contains sensitive data should be
implemented such that it doesn't use this API nor include any unverified
3rd party libraries/extension that may. They should also only utilize a
feature such as this in obvious ways (i.e. by having the user click on a
"copy" butt
We did some user research on this feature when we were building our most
recent flagship product a few years back. Our users' reactions to a sane
site enhancing their clipboard data were unanimously delighted rather than
upset/offended/horrified.
As Hallvord said, sites have been able to do this f
st do Java -> JavaScript that works in browsers.
>
>
>
> *From:* James M. Greene [mailto:james.m.gre...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 5, 2014 05:09
> *To:* Robert Hanson
> *Cc:* David Rajchenbach-Teller; public-webapps; Greeves, Nick; Olli Pettay
> *Subject:* Re: =[xh
ES6 is short for ECMAScript, 6th Edition, which is the next version of the
standard specification that underlies the JavaScript programming language.
All modern browsers currently support ES5 (ECMAScript, 5th Edition) and
some parts of ES6. IE7-8 supported ES3 (ES4 was rejected, so supporting ES3
hopefully is delivered long before sync XHRs become volatile).
Sincerely,
James Greene
Sent from my [smart?]phone
On Sep 4, 2014 7:42 AM, "David Rajchenbach-Teller"
wrote:
> On 04/09/14 14:31, James M. Greene wrote:
> >> The sole reason for these sync
> > XHRs,
> The sole reason for these sync
XHRs, if you recall the OP, is to pull in libraries that are only
> referenced deep in a call stack, so as to avoid having to include
> *all* the libraries in the initial download.
If that is true, wouldn't it better for him to switch over to ES6 Module
imports and
On Aug 20, 2014 4:19 AM, "Daniel Cheng" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
>
>> I don't have "input" as such, but I have a few questions:
>> Is there any widely used software that writes RTF data to the system
clipboard but *not* HTML?
>
> I'm curious about th
Does anyone else have input for/against this? Please chime in. Thanks!
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:57 AM, James Greene
wrote:
> Oh, and I should also mention that the Flash Player clipboard (which we
> are trying to kill) supports plain text, HTML, and RTF, as well a
For consistent terminology with the rest of the API, shouldn't it be
`setAnchorAndFocus`?
Sincerely,
James Greene
Sent from my [smart?]phone
On Aug 5, 2014 5:54 PM, "Ben Peters" wrote:
> I have added proposed text to this bug. Any objections to this?
>
>
>
> Proposed text, based on the
>
> HOWEVER, I am getting the distinct impression that even though I find
> synchronous xmlhttprequests extremely useful in some situations to prevend
> DB corruption--usually I avoid these situations, due to the negative
> impacts you have all described so well in your emails.
While I personally
23 matches
Mail list logo
