Re: [access-control] Implementation comments (credentials flag)

2008-10-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:36:10 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonas Sicking wrote: Yes, I think it would be helpful to add that information. It wasn't clear that the credentials flag wasn't part of the key until you put it this way (though the spec already clearly says so,

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

2008-09-29 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:03:43 -0400, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: Then I'll specify the former as special casing those methods here is something I rather not do. I'd much rather have addEventListener, addEventListenerNS, onprogress, etc. work consistently.

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

2008-09-29 Thread Jonas Sicking
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:03:43 -0400, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: Then I'll specify the former as special casing those methods here is something I rather not do. I'd much rather have addEventListener, addEventListenerNS, onprogress,

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

2008-09-29 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:53:32 -0400, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree we shouldn't prevent synthesized events. But why not say that no ProgressEvents are dispatch at all? That would prevent synthesized ProgressEvent events. Seems like you at least have to prevent 'abort' as

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

2008-09-29 Thread Jonas Sicking
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:53:32 -0400, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree we shouldn't prevent synthesized events. But why not say that no ProgressEvents are dispatch at all? That would prevent synthesized ProgressEvent events. I mean that the

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

2008-09-26 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:12:54 +0200, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:01:57 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We'd also need to do it if 'load' has been registered. I would in general say that we should force it if any events have been registered.

Re: [access-control] Implementation comments

2008-09-25 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Updated draft: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/ On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:08:20 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: It also seems arbitrary that depending on registered event listeners (also specifically before invoking send()) the server needs

[access-control] Implementation comments

-- Thread Jonas Sicking
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> new-zealand-swingers- new-zealand-swingers- Thread Date