RE: Access to localhost to be outlawed?

2015-03-17 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I agree. Using the browser to access local-exposed HTTP resources is an important way to bridge the native/mobile gap. User permission (pre-arranged, persistent, or session-based) can be explicitly required if needed, but blanket prohibition on intra-device communication via HTTP is too

RE: [Push] one or many

2014-10-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
This is one of those semantics rabbit-holes that I request we avoid. The term webapp is well-known (5m hits on google in the common forms “webapp” “web app”, etc). In comparison, “web page” is probably a more amorphous and anachronistic term and provides less valuable context for the

RE: [Webpush] IETF proposes new Web-Based Push Notifications Working Group

2014-09-26 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I agree. I'll help get this out the door asap, likely next week. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | ATT -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 5:44 AM To: Michael van Ouwerkerk; Bryan Sullivan; EDUARDO FULLEA

[April2014Meeting] New PushAPI ED uploaded

2014-04-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Hi all, I have updated the PushAPI ED for a variety of recent discussions including many of the TAG review comments. The new ED is at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html. This ED will be the basis for discussions at the F2F, which I will be dialing into. Here is a summary of

RE: [April2014Meeting] Seeking status and plans from Editors not attending meeting; deadline April 9

2014-04-02 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I will attend the meeting remotely. I assume there will be remote participation support. Re the Push API, we are working on an ED for TAG feedback and other input from browser vendors. An updated ED will be provided before the meeting. -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow

Re: [push] Consider renaming push notification to push message in the Push API spec

2014-03-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I agree, Push Message is the term that is used in other standards e.g. OMA Push. The use of the term notification was a reflection of the current simplified API design which provides only a trigger to the application, as a notification that some data is available at the server. As we consider

Re: [push] Consider renaming push notification to push message in the Push API spec

2014-03-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sure, we will look out for additional potentially confusing term overlap as suggested. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Michael van Ouwerkerk mvanouwerk...@google.commailto:mvanouwerk...@google.com wrote: I think that's a great suggestion Jeffrey. Specifically, I would

Re: [push] Consider renaming push notification to push message in the Push API spec

2014-03-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sure, but this is only a reflection of the semantic space of the English language. Many things can be source of confusion. Understanding context is the responsibility of the reader. We will do what we can to provide clarifying guidance on the use of terms, but Push Message is a well-established

Re: [push-api] Dependency on System Messages

2014-03-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
One of the other changes in progress is to include service workers on the design of the API. I don't know if that replaces system messages in total but the necessary changes will be considered when a new draft is submitted. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Arthur Barstow

RE: [push-api] No clear mention of privacy implication of sending data through push service

2014-02-17 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Thanks for the comments, Tobie. I will provide an update draft proposal soon to address them. Note also that I'm preparing a proposal to actually include a message body, and other enhancements to the current API to broaden support among browsers. I should have a draft for review in the next

[PUSH API] Request for CFC on publication of new WD

2013-07-11 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Hi Webapps, Eduardo and I have uploaded a new ED of the Push API at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html. This incorporates a variety of changes based upon comments received since the last ED. See https://github.com/telefonicaid/WebAPISpecs/commits/develop/Push for details on

RE: Files on IndexedDB

2013-06-11 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Comments below. -Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:56 AM To: Arthur Barstow Cc: pira...@gmail.com; Webapps WG Subject: Re: Files on IndexedDB Hi Art, Actually, the response in [2] says that we should clarify in the spec

RE: Files on IndexedDB

2013-06-11 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Update: my comments were referring to the File API, not the IndexedDB API - I mistook the context of this thread (somehow) to be about the File API... nevermind! -Original Message- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:18 AM To: Jonas Sicking; Arthur Barstow Cc

RE: [PUSH API] Scope of the specification

2013-06-03 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Thanks for starting this thread, Arnaud. I have some responses below, and look forward to discussions on these topics. Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: arnaud.br...@orange.com [mailto:arnaud.br...@orange.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:05 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org

RE: Filesystem events

2013-05-29 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:ch...@jumis.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:08 PM To: pira...@gmail.com Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Filesystem events We didn't come to much of a resolution. It was suggested that the current behavior in browsers was incorrect; that the File should

RE: Filesystem events

2013-05-29 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
-Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:25 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: Charles Pritchard; pira...@gmail.com; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Filesystem events On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L bs3...@att.com

RE: Filesystem events

2013-05-29 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
-Original Message- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:44 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: Charles Pritchard; pira...@gmail.com; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Filesystem events On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L bs3...@att.com

RE: CfC - working on manifest

2013-05-14 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Chaals, Overall, I think we support this proposal but have some questions I would like to get clarifications on: Maybe I don't recall but is SysApps asking Webapps to take the manifest aspect? Or is this something Webapps thinks is its right because of the prior focus on Widgets packaging? I

RE: CfC - working on manifest

2013-05-14 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Thanks for the clarifications - we support it. And I will try to do less multitasking at F2F's! Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:47 AM To: public-webapps WG; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Subject

RE: [IndexedDB] How to recover data from IndexedDB if the origin domain don't exist anymore?

2013-01-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Perhaps this problem indicates a real limitation in the same-origin policy as root for browser data. In a somewhat related point at TPAC for example I pointed out that the value of using IndexedDB for media storage - e.g. GBs of music or videos - will be severely limited if I can't switch my

RE: FileSystem compromise spec

2012-11-30 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
-Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:46 AM To: ext Eric U; Doug Schepers Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re: FileSystem compromise spec On 11/15/12 7:39 PM, ext Eric U wrote: As discussed at TPAC,

RE: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12

2012-10-15 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
...@w3c.org; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12 On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext 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

RE: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?

2012-10-04 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
-Original Message- From: Olli Pettay [mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:48 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Glenn Maynard; Eric U; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track? On 09/26

RE: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15

2012-09-26 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Hi Art, We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft [1], and would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't received any substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that it could be in good shape for publication. With the addition of Telefonica

RE: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]

2012-09-26 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
, September 26, 2012 11:59 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: public-weba...@w3c.org Subject: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15] On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: We've previously called for any comments

Re: Push API draft update

2012-08-27 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Hi Art, Can you update the Webapps Publication Status page to add Eduardo as co-editor of the Push API draft? We are looking forward to feedback on this update, with the goal of getting to FPWD by TPAC if possible. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan + From: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA e...@tid.es Date:

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-06 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Comment inline. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:28 PM To: Mounir Lamouri; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded On 6/5/12 4:00 PM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: On

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-01 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Responses inline. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:29 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded On 5/30/12 11:14 AM, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr wrote: * I guess the idea of

RE: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting

2012-06-01 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Response inline. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:06 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; ife...@google.com; Karl Dubost Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting

RE: Is Quota Management API ready for First Public Working Draft?

2012-05-31 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I support the FPWD publication. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:40 AM To: ext Kinuko Yasuda; WebApps WG Subject: Is Quota Management API ready for First Public Working Draft? Hi Kinuko, All -

RE: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting

2012-05-31 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
bryan Comment inline. From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [mailto:ife...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:42 AM To: Karl Dubost Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. Top-posting On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Karl Dubost ka...@opera.com wrote: Le 29

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-31 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Responses inline. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:15 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded On 05/29/2012 06:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: * I wonder if it is really

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-29 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
04:00 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: [...] I am following the Mozilla lead on registering the intent to receive messages, [...]. I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the proposal on the wiki page is proposing to use intents? -- Mounir

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-29 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Responses inline. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:06 AM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded On 05/26/2012 05:06 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: * As far as I understand

RE: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs

2012-05-27 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: Marcos, Re I thought we had stopped the whole designing for particular screen sizes, etc. a long time ago., that may be the still-closely-held goal, but the reality is that designing for multiple screen sizes (and pixel densities) is still far from simple. Even

RE: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs

2012-05-27 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
27, 2012 5:12 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: Anant Narayanan; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs On 27/05/2012 12:36, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: Re At install time or when I am browsing apps, how does a server

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-25 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
, if possible. If delivery is not possible, the user agent may discard the message, or may queue it for later delivery. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA [mailto:j...@tid.es] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 4:36 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; public-webapps

RE: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs

2012-05-25 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Marcos, Re I thought we had stopped the whole designing for particular screen sizes, etc. a long time ago., that may be the still-closely-held goal, but the reality is that designing for multiple screen sizes (and pixel densities) is still far from simple. Even with all the tools that have

RE: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs

2012-05-25 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
, 2012 12:59 PM To: Marcos Caceres Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Anant Narayanan; public-webapps WG; public-webappst...@w3.org Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest Format and Management APIs On 25 May 2012, at 17:25, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Friday, May 25

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-25 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Thanks for the comments. Some responses added as bryan Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 3:17 PM To: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded On 05/24/2012 09:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L

Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-24 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Thanks to the inestimable help of the W3C staff I am now plugged into the mercurial mainline and have uploaded the first stab at the Push API http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html I incorporated Mozilla's client API ideas in

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-24 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
borrowed from EventSource. Latest version is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.htm Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Ms2ger [mailto:ms2...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:33 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: public-webapps Subject: Re: Push API

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-24 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sorry, cut paste error: the spec is at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:02 AM To: 'Ms2ger' Cc: public-webapps Subject: RE: Push API draft uploaded Thanks

RE: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-24 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
a strong opinion either way. Latest version is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Ms2ger [mailto:ms2...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:37 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: public-webapps Subject: Re: Push API draft

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-05-24 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
as the Mozilla proposal). Service lifecycle management, of which registration is a facet, can hopefully be layered above the API for the most part. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan On May 24, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: On 5/24/2012 7:08 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: OK, I

RE: App Manifest API Proposal

2012-05-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
At least in the widget model, the manifest (including feature elements) provides a means of disclosure to the user about the APIs that the app wants to access. Of course if one assumes that users are brainless click-happy automatons then such disclosures are useless, but at that end of the

RE: App Manifest API Proposal

2012-05-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Hi Anant, Thanks for the proposal. It's good to see this moving forward, following the workshop we had last year after TPAC. Some initial comments: 1) Re version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The User-Agent does not interpret this value in any way and is opaque to

Re: App Manifest API Proposal

2012-05-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
, Bryan Sullivan On May 13, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Anant Narayanan an...@mozilla.com wrote: Hi Sullivan, Thanks for your comments, some responses inline: On 5/13/2012 1:11 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote: 1) Re version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The User-Agent does

Re: Offline Web Applications status

2012-05-04 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I like the idea. This would be useful for various things, especially if we could integrate the discovery and selection of this feature (the local proxy Web service) through Web Intents. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan On May 4, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May

RE: [admin] A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Requirements

2012-05-03 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Marcos, I think it would be great to update the document. While in the Webapps F2F there were some good ideas also floated on supplemental metadata systems (e.g. as used in WHATWG for HTML5) that don't require editors to do anything, IMO we should also consider tooling that helps editors add

ReSpec biblio

2012-05-02 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Hi Robin, I'm starting to edit the Push API spec per the Webapps meeting in progress: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/May2012F2FMeeting (Server-Sent Events extended to work with other push notification schemes such as Push SMS). Some questions on the ReSpec biblio: * Do you have a

RE: publish LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline April 23

2012-04-23 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I support the LCWD publication. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:44 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline April 23 The Server-sent Events spec has

RE: publish Proposed Recommendation of Widget Interface; deadline April 26

2012-04-22 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Art, I support the publication as PR. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:50 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Widget Interface; deadline April 26 Now that

RE: publish Candidate Recommendation of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 11

2012-04-04 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I support the publication as a CR. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 7:07 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline April 11 During the comment period for the

RE: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Workers; deadline April 11

2012-04-04 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
I support the publication as a CR. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:45 AM To: public-webapps Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Workers; deadline April 11 During the comment period for the March 13

RE: Regarding app notification and wake up

2012-03-12 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
a good foundation to resolve the questions you noted. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Karl Dubost [mailto:ka...@opera.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:04 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: Ian Hickson; Stefan Hakansson LK; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Regarding app

RE: Regarding app notification and wake up

2012-03-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
What WebRTC needs is related to the use cases I submitted for the Webapps charter update, for a Push API (based upon the concept presented at TPAC). Without presuming any implementation details at this point (even whether EventSource as it stands will fulfill this), we need the ability of

RE: Regarding app notification and wake up

2012-03-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Ian, Stefan may respond with more detail, but the use cases we submitted for WebRTC consideration describe this as the ability to invoke an application and pass an event to it, whether it is running (or not) at the time of the event reception by the device. By running I mean that the app, or

RE: Regarding app notification and wake up

2012-03-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
*is* running, it's within the scope of what we have discussed earlier as SSE extensions (and not technically a wakeup). Thanks, Bryan Sullivan -Original Message- From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 4:39 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L Cc: Stefan Hakansson LK; public

RE: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)

2010-08-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:30 AM To: gaut...@opera.com; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group) On 8/10/10 9:03 AM, gaut...@opera.com

RE: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL and send it to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)

2010-08-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Marcos, That method works for well-know URI schemes except for http:// and https://. The openURL() method would have launched the browser for those schemes, and we still need a method to do that. I was not able to attend the last week's call and was not aware there was a plan to remove the

RE: [XHR] Status Update

2010-08-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Anne, Are you saying that it should not be possible now (with XHR L1) to receive HTML files via XHR (Receiving HTML documents would indeed be a newish feature ) ? This does actually work for me in XHR L1, so I'm unclear about what you mean below. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original

RE: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)

2010-08-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
...@opera.com [mailto:marc...@opera.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:51 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: RE: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group) Quoting SULLIVAN, BRYAN L

RE: [XHR] Status Update

2010-08-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:49 PM To: Jonas Sicking; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:37:25 +0200, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) bs3...@att.com wrote: Are you saying that it should

RE: [XHR] Status Update

2010-08-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
[mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 5:23 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Anne van Kesteren; WebApps WG Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) bs3...@att.com wrote: Well at least it works in Firefox, Safari, Opera

RE: [XHR] Status Update

2010-08-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
it is supported. Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:51 PM To: Jonas Sicking; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update On Tue, 10

RE: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

2010-06-18 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:42 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux Sorry about the delay in response; I've been out of the office

RE: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

2010-06-15 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
to the user-centric/control paradigms of the past. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:48 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fette; Web Applications

RE: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

2010-06-15 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:48 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) bs3

RE: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

2010-06-15 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
models for Web application access to device resources will be defined as APIs. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:53 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3

RE: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

2010-06-15 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:42 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux Hi, Am I correct in thinking that what you find too restrictive

RE: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux

2010-06-15 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
, and may support the majority of use cases anyway. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | ATT From: Mike Clement [mailto:mi...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:40 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fette; Web Applications Working

Regrets for today

2010-06-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
I will not be able to attend today's call. Bryan | ATT

RE: Event handlers - Pointer Devices

2010-03-04 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
distinction between the charters on these points. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schep...@w3.org] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:08 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: Charles Pritchard; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: Event handlers - Pointer

RE: [EventSource] Comments to the current draft

2009-12-07 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
...@hixie.ch] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 6:52 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [EventSource] Comments to the current draft On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote: Re The API is designed such that it can be extended to work with other push

RE: DAP and security (was: Rename File API to FileReader API?)

2009-11-18 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Maciej, Security is important in DAP, and should be considered carefully in the context of each API and its use cases. There is no one size fits all solution to security, and that includes approaches based solely upon explicit user action (including explicitly expressed permission via

RE: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec

2009-11-12 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
regards, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:02 PM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote: Placing broad restrictions

RE: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec

2009-11-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
need to fix the access element definition somehow. Best regards, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:36 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec

RE: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec

2009-11-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
...@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:30 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote: Marcos, I agree there is an assumption behind the approach I proposed, which I also believe will be valid for the vast

RE: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec

2009-11-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
for the domain My preference would be (1), but I proposed the use of tag= to illustrate how (2) might work. Best regards, Bryan Sullivan | ATT -Original Message- From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:01 AM To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) Cc: WebApps WG

[WARP] Comments to WARP spec

2009-11-02 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Here are the comments I had to the WARP spec in the Webapps/DAP joint meeting: 1) Does * grant/require either HTTP or HTTPS as schemes? It would be better to allow https://*/; or http://*/; distinctly since some applications may not be allowed by policy to access specific sources using non-secure

RE: TPAC agenda - APIs

2009-10-27 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Hi Charles, I have an agenda item for the AOB section or wherever it can fit. I will be spending most of the time with DAP and part with Webapps (Widgets), but will try to balance the agendas to be in the APIs meeting as much as possible. The basic question I have is what is the relationship of

RE: [widgets] Draft Agenda for 17 September 2009 voice conf

2009-09-17 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Regrets, I have a conflicting meeting. Best regards, Bryan Sullivan | ATT

Close ACTION-357

2009-08-13 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Hi Art, My action http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/357 can be closed. The table that was requested was provided in Widgets 1.0: Window Modes and Media Query Extensions http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html. I didn't do it, but it does meet the original request

Questions on AE spec

2009-06-09 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Title: Questions on AE spec Here are a couple of potentially easy questions on the Widgets 1.0: APIs and Events spec: 5.15 The openURL() Method Does the appropriate protocol handler mean an external application (e.g. browser for http://) is invoked, or can the handler be the widget user