On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
In which case the WHATWG version wouldn't be canonical anymore anyway.
It would be for implementers.
Only those implementers that can afford to staff a team to keep up
with a moving target. That's not all potential
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Again, Vary: User-Agent is the answer here, from the browser's point of
view.
Agreed.
I agree that this would be good to discuss in a security implications
section. The spec could even require that responses to XHR with
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
The point is that a browser can act as if every single server response
included Vary: User-Agent. And perhaps should. Intermediary caches
_certainly_ should.
I don't have enough experience with that scenario to agree or
I'm not sure if you're on device-apis, Marcos, but you might be
interested in this - what happens when you no longer need to intercept
localhost;
http://www.w3.org/mid/6dfa1b20d858a14488a66d6eedf26aa35d61fed...@seldmbx03.corpusers.net
Mark.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
There are however many useful benefits in tying a packaged web application
(using whatever packaging) to an origin, not the least of which is
same-origin policy and overall just being a regular web app (that may
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
I've updated the Widget URI scheme spec, and it's now ready for publication
as a new WD.
What's new? I completely rewrote it. Now defines a dereferencing model that
fakes HTTP responses (so hopefully now will
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com (mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com) wrote:
Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between
widget: and http: is the authority.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:41 PM, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
More generic
- text/* (I've see in too many places mime-types like text/x-c-src, and
text is text.)
- application/*+xml
+1
- application/*script (ecmascript, javascript)
Well, unlike the two above, there's no
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
The regex could just as easily have been written to exclude the
authority component of the URI. Do you have a better example?
It could have, but it wasn't — interoperability isn't what happens when
people write to a W3C
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 17:18 , Mark Baker wrote:
function getSection () {
return location.href.replace(/^http:\/\/magic.local\/([^\/]+).*/,
$1).toLowerCase();
}
I won't say that it's necessarily the best-written code
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
Right. That's the same point Arve made. I don't see a problem
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
Right. That's the same point Arve made. I don't see a problem with
it. Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation detail
of its widget container - the base URI
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:33:21 +0200, Mark Baker dist...@acm.org wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
a.href is always an absolute URL on getting. Making it something else
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2009 15:54:17 +0200, Mark Baker dist...@acm.org wrote:
It's perfectly good HTML to use a relative reference inside an href,
as I'm sure you know. Are you suggesting that widgets have a more
restrictive
Marcos,
I'm curious to learn where the requirement that Must not allow
addressing resources outside a widget came from? Can you point to a
precedent for such a restriction in any other protocol? I remember
TimBL writing something to the effect of Anywhere you can use a URI,
you can use any URI,
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Arve Bersvendsen ar...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:25:40 +0200, Mark Baker dist...@acm.org wrote:
I'm curious to learn where the requirement that Must not allow
addressing resources outside a widget came from? Can you point to a
precedent
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Arve Bersvendsen ar...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:21:56 +0200, Mark Baker dist...@acm.org wrote:
I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of
relative references) forward, as IIRC, the widget: scheme idea was
dropped about
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
a.href is always an absolute URL on getting. Making it something else would
be a bad hack and counter to how it has been designed.
You mean the href attribute as used in the config file? I'm only
talking about @src
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'll want to define what it means for one version string to be greater
than another one.
We decided a while back that we would
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Mark,
Please see [1] for TAG discussion about WebApps proposal of widget URI
scheme. From what I got from the discussion, the TAG seems to agree
that we likely do need our own URI scheme.
Hmm, have you read the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, In one of my previous emails I said that this was a potential
privacy
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I will add Any hierarchical URI scheme as the proposed solution
into the spec.
I will say that, personally, I feel it is irresponsible for the
WebApps WG to not recommend a complete and a secure solution for this
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Any hierarchical URI scheme would seem to be able to meet those
requirements. So why not, for the sake of argument, file:?
Yes, file: might be ok. But where is the spec that defines file:? I
can't find it.
Good
Marcos - IIRC, there was little or no support for a widget URI scheme
in the discussion on www-tag. Why are you continuing to move ahead
with it?
Note that you'll still have to get this past IANA who maintains the
registry. IANA uses a process specified in RFC 4395 which says;
The use and
Hi Marcos,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I've dropped the etag attribute from the update element in the
Widget Packaging spec as I deemed it too difficult to use in practice
How so?
(and mostly redundant). It is also unnecessary as
25 matches
Mail list logo
