Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-14 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comwrote: On Thursday, March 14, 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote: I don't

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

2013-03-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'slightly...@google.com'); wrote: Comments inline. Adding some folks from the IDB team at Google to the thread as well as public-webapps. (I

Re: [XHR]

2012-10-09 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote: On 10/8/12 5:45 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: I can't reproduce this (in Chrome 22). Neither can I (Chrome Version 22.0.1229.79). --tobie Third and final confirmation; I cannot reproduce this w/ 22 or 23 beta.

Re: [XHR] Open issue: allow setting User-Agent?

2012-10-09 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.comwrote: Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl skreiv Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:13:00 +0200 it was once stated that allowing full control would be a security risk. I don't think this argument has really been substantiated for

Re: Should send() be able to take an ArrayBufferView?

2012-04-11 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 4/11/12 5:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote: Sending an ArrayBufferView would still have to use arraybuffer as the type of data. I don't think it

Re: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ?

2012-04-10 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Sounds great to me. The ports attribute is basically useless except in this one instance since ports are these days expose as part of structured

Re: Shared workers - use .source instead of .ports[0] ?

2012-04-10 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:01:47 +0200, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:46 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc

Re: [XHR] XMLHttpRequest.send()

2012-04-10 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On

Re: [webcomponents] Progress Update

2012-03-20 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote: Whoops... that does not appear to be the same file. Appears that the repo points to http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/c2f82425ba8d/spec/templates/index.html FYI tip will point to the latest revision:

Re: Recent Sync XHR changes and impact on automatically translated JavaScript code

2012-03-20 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Gordon Williams g...@pur3.co.uk wrote: Hi, I recently posted on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=72154https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72154

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Jarred Nicholls
2012/1/24 Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert something like: DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress). This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the status of DOM2 to a work in progress.

[xhr] responseType for sync requests in window context

2012-01-10 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Got some reports of broken C/C++ = JS compilers that relied on sync XHR to load resources into an ArrayBuffer (simulating fopen), e.g. Mandreel and Enscripten. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=716765 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72154#c43 Is there additional scoping of

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: But, if the browser does not support UTF-32, then the table in step (4) of [1] is supposed to apply, which would interpret the initial two bytes FF FE as UTF-16LE according to the current language of [1], and further,

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: Please be careful with quote markers; you quoted text written by me as written by Glenn Adams. Sorry, copying from the archives into Gmail is a pain. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 1/6/12 12:13 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: WebKit is used in many walled garden environments, so we consider these scenarios, but as a secondary goal to our primary goal of being a standards compliant browser engine

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/06/2012 10:28 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: This is an editor's draft of a spec, it's not a recommendation, so it's hardly a violation of anything. With this kind of attitude, frankly, you shouldn't be implementing a spec

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: Long experience shows that people who say things like I'm going to code against the Rec instead of the draft, because the Rec is more stable I know that's a common error, but I never said I was going against a Rec.

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Jarred Nicholls wrote: This is an editor's draft of a spec, it's not a recommendation, so it's hardly a violation of anything. This is a 2-way street, and often times it's the spec that needs to change

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote: WebKit is used in many walled garden environments, so we consider these scenarios, but as a secondary goal to our primary goal

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2012-01-06 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote: Correction: rfc4627 doesn't describe BOM detection, it describes zero-byte detection. My question remains, though: what exactly are you doing? Do you do

Re: Priorities and expectations for 2012

2011-12-27 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:31 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK stefan.lk.hakans...@ericsson.com wrote: On 12/23/2011 06:37 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, I've been thinking a bit about realistic expectations for 2012 for those specs that are already in scope in the WG's current

Re: [cors] what's an example a simple request with credentials?

2011-12-23 Thread Jarred Nicholls
would also make the request non-simple, wouldn't they? -- *Sencha* Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect @jarrednicholls http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls

Re: [XHR2] timeout

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Are any user agents other than IE8+ currently implementing or have implemented XHR2 timeout? https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74802 I have a couple of things I wanted to question, which may or may not result in clarification in the spec. 1. The spec says the timeout should fire after

Re: [XHR2] timeout

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.comwrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote: 1. The spec says the timeout should fire after the specified number of milliseconds has elapsed since the start of the request. I presume

Re: [XHR2] timeout

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote: On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com mailto:ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:33 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar

Re: [XHR2] timeout

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.orgwrote: 1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform. To achieve the same results as a native dataTimeout, your snippet would need to be amended to maintain the time of the start of the request and calculate the difference between

Re: [XHR2] timeout

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fiwrote: On 12/21/2011 08:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.**fi olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote: On 12/21/2011 05:59 PM, Jarred

Re: [XHR2] timeout

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.orgwrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@webkit.org wrote: 1. Clean code, which is better for authors and the web platform

Re: [cors] Should browsers send non-user-controllable headers in Access-Control-Request-Headers?

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote: Chrome sends: Access-Control-Request-Headers:Origin, Content-Type, Accept Is that just wrong? The spec clearly says: author request headers: A list of headers set by authors for the request. Empty, unless

[CORS] Allow-Access-Request-Method

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that Allow-Access-Request-Method should be sent, always. However in WebKit and Firefox I'm observing this header only being sent when there are author request headers being sent in Allow-Access-Request-Headers. Is the spec not clear

[CORS] Access-Control-Request-Method was Re: [CORS] Allow-Access-Request-Method

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 12/21/11 11:04 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that Allow-Access-Request-Method should be sent, always. There is no such thing. What header did you actually

[CORS] Access-Control-Request-Method

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
I'll try this again... The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that Access-Control-Request-Method should be sent, always. However in WebKit and Firefox I'm observing this header only being sent when there are author request headers being sent in

Re: [CORS] Access-Control-Request-Method

2011-12-21 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 12/21/11 11:28 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: I'll try this again... The spec makes it very succinct in its preflight request steps that Access-Control-Request-Method should be sent, always. However in WebKit

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

2011-12-16 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:21:34 +0100, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote: Adrian: I'm willing to relax this. I suppose it *is* inconsistent to insist on 36 chars when we don't insist on UUID. But I

Re: [FileAPI] createObjectURL isReusable proposal

2011-12-14 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: 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

Re: [FileAPI] Remove readAsBinaryString?

2011-12-14 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:54:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: I agree we should remove it from spec! I think we'd be fine with removing it from the Firefox implementation. Same goes for Opera! Jonas

Re: [FileAPI] Remove readAsBinaryString?

2011-12-13 Thread Jarred Nicholls
+1 though it won't likely go away from implementations as easily. On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: Seems quite reasonable to me. We've got data URL strings for people who need inefficiency (or portable strings). On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Adrian

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-12 Thread Jarred Nicholls
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText + the new json responseType. Currently it is written that responseText should throw an exception if the responseType is not or text. I would argue that responseText should also return the plain text when the type is json.

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-12 Thread Jarred Nicholls
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText + the new json responseType. Currently it is written that responseText should throw an exception if the responseType is not or text. I would argue that responseText should also return the plain text when the type is json.

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-12 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:44:58 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote: I understand that's how you spec'ed it, but it's not how it's implemented in IE nor WebKit for legacy purposes - which is what I meant

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-12 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote: A good compromise would be to only throw it away (and thus restrict responseText access) upon the first successful parse when accessing

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-12 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 12/12/11 8:12 AM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: I started an initiative to bring XHR in WebKit up-to-spec (see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=54162https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54162) and got a lot

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-11 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote: I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText + the new json responseType. Currently it is written

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-11 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote: I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-11 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 06:10:26 +0100, Jarred Nicholls jar...@sencha.com wrote: For legacy reasons, responseText and responseXML continue to work together despite the responseType that is set. This is false

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-10 Thread Jarred Nicholls
I'd like to bring up an issue with the spec with regards to responseText + the new json responseType. Currently it is written that responseText should throw an exception if the responseType is not or text. I would argue that responseText should also return the plain text when the type is json.

Re: [FileAPI] BlobBuilder.append(native)

2011-09-23 Thread Jarred Nicholls
that, it seems to mean native where it says transparent. -- Glenn Maynard -- *Sencha* Jarred Nicholls, Senior Software Architect @jarrednicholls http://twitter.com/jarrednicholls

Re: [DOM] Name

2011-09-05 Thread Jarred Nicholls
On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I will proceed with a request

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

2011-09-05 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote: 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:

Re: [DOM] Name

2011-09-05 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: The

Re: [DOM] Name

2011-09-05 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@extjs.com wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren

Re: [DOM] Name

2011-09-05 Thread Jarred Nicholls
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On