Leaving Mozilla

Hi All, A little over a month ago I got married. My wife and I are planning on doing an extended honeymoon, starting now and ending sometime early next year. I'm not certain where we'll end up after the honeymoon, or what either of us will work with. Because of this, my last day at Mozilla was

Re: [XHR]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > No, streams do not solve the problem of "how do you present a > partially-downloaded JSON object". They handle chunked data *better*, > so they'll improve "text" response handling, Also binary handling should be

Re: [XHR]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Gomer Thomas wrote: > but I need a cross-browser solution in the near future Another solution that I think would work cross-browser is to use "text/plain;charset=ISO-8859-15" as content-type. That way I *think* you can simply read

Re: [XHR]

Sounds like you want access to partial binary data. There's some propitiatory features in Firefox which lets you do this (added ages ago). See [1]. However for a cross-platform solution we're still waiting for streams to be available. Hopefully that should be soon, but of course cross-browser

Re: File API - where are the missing parts?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: > I'm also very interested in hearing from other browser implementers; Chrome > is in the odd position of having made investments in related areas > (FileSystem API and FileWriter API) that did not see adoption in other >

Re: File API - where are the missing parts?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> Is the last bullet here really accurate? How can you use existing APIs to >> listen to file modifications? >

Re: File API - where are the missing parts?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Florian Bösch wrote: > > *What this covers* > >- Read one or many files in their entirety in one go (in python that >would be open('foobar').read()) >- Save a completed binary string in its entirety in one go to the >download

Re: Art steps down - thank you for everything

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: > Thanks Art for everything you've done for the group for so long. Hi Art, Yes, thank you very much for chairing the WG for so long. This group has under your chairing been one of the W3C WGs that has moved

Re: [Editing] [DOM] Adding static range API

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Olli Pettay wrote: >> >> Hard to judge this proposal before seeing an API using StaticRange objects. >> >> One thing though, if apps were to create an undo stack of their own,

Re: Callback when an event handler has been added to a custom element

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Olli Pettay wrote: > On 11/06/2015 09:28 PM, Justin Fagnani wrote: >> >> You can also override addEventListener/removeEventListener on your >> element. My concern with that, and possibly an event listener change >> callback, is >> that it only

Re: Indexed DB + Promises

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > This seems ... reasonable, and quite possibly the best we can do. It has a > several notable rough edges: > > - The need to remember to use .promise, instead of just having functions > whose return values you can await

Re: [WebIDL] T[] migration

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Recommendations: ·HTML5 ·Web Messaging Other references: ·CSS OM ·Web Sockets ·WebRTC Note that in practice I would think that most implementations return objects

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@annevk.nl] I think the problem is that nobody has yet tried to figure out what invariants that would break and how we could solve them. I'm not too worried about the parser as it

Re: The key custom elements question: custom constructors?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Like Anne says, if it was better defined when the callbacks should happen, and that it was defined that they all happen after all internal datastructures had been updated

Re: Cross-page locking mechanism for indexedDB/web storage/FileHandle ?

Yeah, I think a standalone primitive for asynchronous atomics. The big risk is of course that deadlocks can occur, but there's no real way to completely avoid that while keeping a flexible platform. These deadlocks would be asynchronous, so no thread will hang, but you can easily end up with two

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: One important question though is what would input type=file directories do on platforms that don't have a directory UI concept? Like most mobile platforms? Err.. that should say: What would input type=directory do

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On that note, there is actually a 5th option that we can entertain. We could have three different kinds of file inputs: one type for files, another for directories, and yet another for handling both files and directories

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

picker is available? / Jonas Thanks, Ali On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ali Alabbas a...@microsoft.com wrote: I recommend that we change the dir attribute to directories and keep directory the same as it is now to avoid

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ali Alabbas a...@microsoft.com wrote: I recommend that we change the dir attribute to directories and keep directory the same as it is now to avoid clashing with the existing dir attribute on the HTMLInputElement. All in favor? There's no current directory

Re: Shadow DOM: state of the distribution API

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Has at-end-of-microtask been debated rather than 1/2? Synchronous always has the downside that the developer has to deal with reentrancy. 1/2

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Doug Turner do...@mozilla.com wrote: The way I would look at this is based on timeframe -- if we're not implementing the Permissions API until 2017 or something, i'd just leave the functionality in the PushAPI spec. If the Permission API is right around the

Re: Shadow DOM: state of the distribution API

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: 1) Synchronous, no flattening of content. A host element's shadow tree has a set of slots each exposed as a single content element to the outside. Host elements nested inside that shadow tree can only reuse slots from

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

I think mozilla would be fine with taking the permission API as a dependency and implement that at the same time. Implementing the permission API should be fairly trivial for us. But we should verify this with the people actually working on the push API. / Jonas On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM,

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: Over in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2015May/0006.html Jonas pointed out that having two APIs for doing the same thing is nuts. We should probably decide whether we go ahead with the

Re: :host pseudo-class

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:37 PM, L. David Baron dba...@dbaron.org wrote: On Saturday 2015-04-25 09:32 -0700, Anne van Kesteren wrote: I don't understand why :host is a pseudo-class rather than a pseudo-element. My mental model of a pseudo-class is that it allows you to match an element based

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Aaron opened an issue for this on GitHub [1] and I agree that it is a problem and we should definitely rename it to something else! One option might be to change dir to directory, but we would need a

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Ali Alabbas a...@microsoft.com wrote: Hello WebApps Group, Hi Ali, Yay! This is great to see a formal proposal for! Definitely something that mozilla is very interested in working

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Travis Leithead travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote: Second, rather than adding a .directory attribute, I think that we should simply add any selected directories to the .files list. My experience is that having a direct mapping between what the user does, and

Re: Exposing structured clone as an API?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 4/23/15 6:34 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: Have you benchmarked this? I think you're better off just writing your own clone library. That requires

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Ali Alabbas a...@microsoft.com wrote: Hello WebApps Group, Hi Ali, Yay! This is great to see a formal proposal for! Definitely something that mozilla is very interested in working on. If there is sufficient interest, I would like to work on this within the

Re: Why is querySelector much slower?

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote: Intuitively, querySelector('.class') only needs to find the first matching node, whereas getElementsByClassName('.class')[0] needs to find all matching nodes and then return the first. The former should be a lot quicker

Re: Directory Upload Proposal

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Ali Alabbas a...@microsoft.com wrote: If there is sufficient interest, I would like to work on this within the scope of the WebApps working group. It seems somewhat better to just

Re: [W3C TCP and UDP Socket API]: Status and home for this specification

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: I think it's OK for different browsers to experiment with different non-interoperable conditions under which they fulfill or reject the

Re: [W3C TCP and UDP Socket API]: Status and home for this specification

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Not saying that we can use CORS to solve this, or that we should extend CORS to solve this. My point is that CORS works because it was specified

Re: [W3C TCP and UDP Socket API]: Status and home for this specification

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] This particular example sets of alarm bells for me because of virtual hosting. Eek! Yeah, OK, I think it's best I refrain from trying to come up with specific examples.

Re: [W3C TCP and UDP Socket API]: Status and home for this specification

leave that discussion to others. / Jonas On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu] This particular example sets of alarm bells for me because

Re: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Web Messaging; deadline March 28

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: 2. http://www.w3c-test.org/webmessaging/without-ports/025.html; this test failure (which passes on IE) is considered an implementation bug (MessageChannel and MessagePort are supposed to be exposed to Worker) that is

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl

Re: template namespace attribute proposal

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Benjamin Lesh bl...@netflix.com wrote: What are your thoughts on this idea? I think it would be more natural

Re: CORS performance

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: If that's the case then I think we'd get most of the functionality, with essentially none of the risk, by only allowing server-wide cookie-less preflights. If we only do it for this, could we combine that feature with

Re: CORS performance

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Brad Hill hillb...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is at least worth discussing the relative merits of using a resource published under /.well-known for such use cases, vs. sending pinned

Re: CORS performance proposal

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 February 2015 at 20:43, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: High-byte of what? A URL is within ASCII range when it reaches

Re: CORS performance proposal

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: An alternative is that we attempt to introduce Access-Control-Policy

Re: CORS performance

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: A lot websites accidentally enabled cross-origin requests with cookies. Not realizing that that enabled attackers to make requests that had side

Re: CORS performance

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote: so presumably it is OK to set the Content-Type to text/plain Thats not ok, but may explain my confusion, is Content-Type considered a Custom Header that will always trigger a preflight? if so then none of the caching will

Re: CORS performance proposal

Would this be allowed for both requests with credentials and requests without credentials? The security implications of the two are very different. / Jonas On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: When the user agent is about to make its first preflight to an

Re: CORS performance

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote: With Couch / PouchDB we are working with an existing REST API wherein every request is to a different url (which is unlikely to change), the

Re: CORS performance

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Brad Hill hillb...@gmail.com wrote: I think that POSTing JSON would probably expose to CSRF a lot of things that work over HTTP but don't expect to be interacted with by web browsers in that manner. That's why the recent JSON encoding for forms mandates that

Re: do not deprecate synchronous XMLHttpRequest

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Michaela Merz michaela.m...@hermetos.com wrote: Blobs are immutable but it would be cool to have blob 'pipes' or FIFOs allowing us to stream from those pipes by feeding them via AJAX. Since it sounds like you want to help with this, there's good news! There's

Re: do not deprecate synchronous XMLHttpRequest

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote: i agree that it's not a democratic process and even though some W3C/TAG people will engage you every now and then the end result is the browser vendors and even companies like Akamai have more say than the users and

Re: oldNode.replaceWith(...collection) edge case

On Jan 27, 2015 4:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: In general I agree that it feels unintuitive that you can't replace a node with a collection which includes the node itself. So the extra line or two

Re: oldNode.replaceWith(...collection) edge case

On Jan 17, 2015 8:20 PM, Glen Huang curvedm...@gmail.com wrote: Oh crap. Just realized saving index won't work if context node's previous siblings are passed as arguments. Looks like inserting transient node is still the best way. The simplest way to write this method would seem to me to be

Re: PSA: Indexed Database API is a W3C Recommendation

\o/ On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations All! This was a job very well done. On 1/8/15 2:37 PM, Coralie Mercier wrote: It is my pleasure to announce that Indexed Database API is published as a W3C Recommendation

Re: Interoperability vs file: URLs

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On 12/02/2014 02:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: To be clear, I'm proposing to remove any and all normative definition of file:// handling from the spec. Because I don't think there is interoperability, nor do I think that it's

Re: URL Spec WorkMode (was: PSA: Sam Ruby is co-Editor of URL spec)

Just in case I haven't formally said this elsewhere: My personal feeling is that it's probably better to stay away from speccing the behavior of file:// URLs. There's very little incentive for browsers to align on how to handle file:// handling. The complexities of different file system

Re: URL Spec WorkMode (was: PSA: Sam Ruby is co-Editor of URL spec)

to depend on the behavior of file:// parsing, even if they were to intentionally try. / Jonas From: Jonas Sicking Sent: 2014-12-01 22:07 To: Sam Ruby Cc: Webapps WG Subject: Re: URL Spec WorkMode (was: PSA: Sam Ruby is co-Editor of URL spec) Just in case I

Re: Interoperability vs file: URLs (was: URL Spec WorkMode)

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On 12/01/2014 10:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me wrote: What we really need to do is get some popular library or website to take a dependency on mobile Chrome

Re: What I am missing

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 11/18/14, 10:26 PM, Michaela Merz wrote: First: We need signed script code. For what it's worth, Gecko supported this for a while. See http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/signed-scripts.html.

Re: What I am missing

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: or direct file access http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/file/filesystem/ This is no more direct file access than IndexedDB is. IndexedDB also allow you to store File objects, but also doesn't allow you to access things

Re: Push API change for permissions UX

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jake Archibald jaffathec...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion is about how often push may be processed silently (without showing a notification), not if a push notification may *only* show a notification. Ok. I think this comes back to the old problem of that

Re: Push API change for permissions UX

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Owen Campbell-Moore owe...@google.com wrote: I think it might make sense to ask for permission to display notifications/UI at the same time as you ask for permission to run in the background. I hope the above explains why we believe that while some sites may

Re: Push API and Service Workers

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Erik Corry erikco...@google.com wrote: * Push doesn't actually need SW's ability to intercept network communications on behalf of a web page. * You can imagine a push-handling SW that

Re: Push API and Service Workers

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Shijun Sun shij...@microsoft.com wrote: My understanding here is that we want to leverage the push client in the OS. That will provide new capabilities without dependency on a direct connection between the app and the app server. Yes, this is how the spec is

Re: Push API and Service Workers

The hard question is: What do you do if there's an incoming push message for a given website, but the user doesn't have the website currently open. Service Workers provide the primitive needed to enable launching a website in the background to handle the incoming push message. Another solution

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:28 PM, cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: So the question turns on whether the changes would invalidate a patent review, and my quick guess is that the answer is yes ;( Really? I would have made the opposite conclusion. Changing the event source makes a very small

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/2/14 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back to WD/LCWD. Does any implementation

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

Though I also agree with Mounir. Changing the event source doesn't seem like a change that's substantial enough that we'd need to go back to WD/LCWD. Does any implementation actually feel that it would be? / Jonas On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: Can we

Re: Service worker popup (rich notification)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM, John Mellor joh...@google.com wrote: This seems to either require a somewhat stronger trust signal from the user, or a very easy mechanism for revoking the permission if the website does

Re: [clipboard] Semi-Trusted Events Alternative

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Dale Harvey d...@arandomurl.com wrote: websites can already trivially build editors that use copy and paste within the site itself, the entire problem is that leads to confusing behaviour when the user copies and pastes outside the website, which is a huge use

Re: [clipboard] Semi-Trusted Events Alternative

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hst...@mozilla.com wrote: It's an interesting idea that partly fixes the main drawback with the current proposal: that to read clipboard contents, paste must be triggered from the browser's own UI, not the website's. The current proposal

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, at 08:52, Jonas Sicking wrote: It's somewhat inconsistent that we use the term natural to indicate the most natural direction based on hardware, but we use the term primary when indicating the most

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@gmail.com wrote: Mounir and Marcos would like to publish a LCWD of The Screen Orientation API and this is a Call for Consensus to do using the latest ED (not yet in the LCWD template) as the basis:

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Also, I can't find any normative definition of if orientation.angle should increase or decrease if the user rotates a device 90 degrees clockwise? My bad, I see it now. Given how easy this is to get wrong, it might be worth

Re: {Spam?} Re: [xhr]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: Hear hear. Indeed, a large part of moving to a living standard model is all about maintaining the agility to respond to changes to avoid having to make

Re: {Spam?} Re: [xhr]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: My only issue is the wording: it doesn't make sense to have normative language saying you must not use this feature. This should be a non-normative

Re: Proposal for a Permissions API

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: # Straw man proposal # This proposal is on purpose minimalistic and only contains features that should have straight consensus and strong use cases, the linked document [1] contains ideas of optional additions and list of

Re: Screen Orientation Feedback

Yup. Well.. sounds like people, including you, pointed out these problems. No idea why it was ignored since I wasn't there. / Jonas On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lars Knudsen lar...@gmail.com wrote: If only someone had pointed out these problems earlier ;) On Aug 5, 2014 11:17 PM, Jonas

Re: Screen Orientation Feedback

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Rich Tibbett ri...@opera.com wrote: Do you have any thoughts on providing screen-adjusted devicemotion event data also (i.e. acceleration, accelerationIncludingGravity, rotationRate) It's not something I've thought about, but yeah, it sounds like that would

Re: Proposal for a credential management API.

Hi Mike, I'm very interested in improving the login experience on websites. In particular I'd like to create a better flow when federated logins are used, with at least the following goals: * Make it easier for websites to use federated login as to discourage passwords. * Ensure that the

Re: Proposal for a credential management API.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Mike West mk...@google.com wrote: * Enable a login flow which is less jarring UX-wise than today's redirects. * Don't increase the number of clicks needed to log in. Today two clicks are usually enough, we shouldn't be worse than that since then websites won't

Re: Screen Orientation Feedback

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: Maybe this feedback should be more for DeviceOrientation than Screen Orientation. There has been a few discussions there (public-geolocation). This is the type of procedural issues that I'd really rather not get caught in.

Screen Orientation Feedback

Hi All, I think the current interaction between the screen orientation and device orientation specs is really unfortunate. Any time that you use the device orientation in order to render something on screen, you have to do non-obvious math in order to get coordinates which are usable. Same thing

Re: [push-api] Moving PushManager push onto ServiceWorkerRegistration

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jake Archibald jaffathec...@gmail.com wrote: navigator.serviceWorker.ready.then(function(reg) { reg.push.register(...) }); I agree this looks good. Though maybe reg.registerPush(...) instead? / Jonas

Re: IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:45 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote: I think this sounds like a fine idea. -Ben Turner On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi all, I found

Re: IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Marc Fawzi marc.fa...@gmail.com wrote: Having said that, and speaking naively here, a synchronous .exists() or .contains() would be useful as existence checks shouldn't have to be exclusively asynchronous as that complicates how we'd write: if this exists

Re: IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

which is really bad for perf. It's also different from all other database operations. So if that's your request then the answer is definitely no. / Jonas Sent from my iPhone On Jun 23, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Marc Fawzi

IDBObjectStore/IDBIndex.exists(key)

Hi all, I found an old email with notes about features that we might want to put in v2. Almost all of them was recently brought up in the recent threads about IDBv2. However there was one thing on the list that I haven't seen brought up. It might be a nice perf improvement to add support for a

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein ad...@google.com wrote: While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we change this, and I concur that it seems unlikely to break content, I worry about the spec and implementation complexity that would be incurred by having to

Re: Fetch API

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote: It seems to me that for both the HeaderMap constructor and any object-literal processing, the best solution for now is to just do things in prose... I think the first thing we should decide on is what syntax

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote: case 1: var tx; Promise.resolve().then(function() { tx = db.transaction(storeName); // tx should be active here... }).then(function() { // is tx active here? }); For case 1, ISTM that yes matches

Re: Fetch API

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: Does ES define the order of { x: a, y: b } btw? I believe so, but someone

Re: Fetch API

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jake Archibald jaffathec...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 June 2014 16:50, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote: - I like HeaderMap a lot, but for construction purposes, I wonder

Re: WebApp installation via the browser

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any platforms providing the feature? Has the feature gained any traction among the platform vendors? The webapps platform that we use in FirefoxOS and Firefox Desktop allows any website to be an app store. I

Re: Blob URL Origin

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: For blob URLs (and prolly filesystem and indexeddb) we put the origin in the URL and define a way to extract it again so new URL(blob).origin does the right thing. Yup. For fetching blob URLs (and prolly filesystem

Data URL Origin (Was: Blob URL Origin)

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: How do we deal with data URLs? Obviously you can always get a resource out of them. But when should the response of fetching one be tainted and when should it not be? And there's a somewhat similar question for about

Re: Data URL Origin (Was: Blob URL Origin)

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: * The default for this new flag is false * If the flag is set to false, the origin of the URL is a unique identifier. * When the origin is a unique

Re: Last Call for CSS Font Loading Module Level 3

I've provided this input through a few channels already, but I don't think the user of [SetClass] here is good (and in fact I've been arguing that SetClass should be removed from WebIDL). First off you likely don't want to key the list of fonts on the FontFace object instance like the spec

Re: [manifest] Fetching restriction, Re: [manifest] Update and call for review

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On May 27, 2014 at 9:25:26 AM, Ben Francis (bfran...@mozilla.com) wrote: As per our conversation in IRC, something else I'd like to highlight is the fact that in the current version of the spec any web site can host an

Re: Last Call for CSS Font Loading Module Level 3

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: Separately, FontFace.loaded seems to fulfill the same purpose as FontFaceSet.ready(). I.e. both indicate that the object is done loading/parsing/applying its data. It seems more consistent if they had the same name,

Re: Last Call for CSS Font Loading Module Level 3

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: Separately, FontFace.loaded seems to fulfill the same purpose

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >