On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:28:48 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
At the very least we can define that for HTTP request, headers are not
used. For things like WebSocket and
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:28:48 +0200, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Anne van Kesterenann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:00:46 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:54:10 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Anne van Kesterenann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:00:46 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:54:10 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
That definitely makes sense, though please take into
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:00:46 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:54:10 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
That definitely makes sense, though please take into consideration that
for cross-origin loads exposing the file size cannot be
On Sat, 30 May 2009 09:26:40 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:57:41 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
I can see some value in this specification giving advice as to what the
names of the events should be and what order they should
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:57:41 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:35:15 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I continue to think that RFC2119 terms are overused, used unnecessarily
and redundantly in a manner that will cause future pain, and used in
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:35:15 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I continue to think that RFC2119 terms are overused, used unnecessarily
and redundantly in a manner that will cause future pain, and used in
manners that do not directly map to clear testable features, which I
think is
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
I think it is wrong to make content non-conforming because it
fires events in a fashion that isn't consistent with this draft.
It seems odd to me to say that content is not allowed to work around
bugs in browsers, for
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:28:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
I think it is wrong to make content non-conforming because it fires
events in a fashion that isn't consistent with this draft.
These are conformance requirements.
Hi Ian,
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:24:14 -0400, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html
I guess
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/progress/Progress.html?rev=1.25
in particular, since that was the latest draft when I received
10 matches
Mail list logo
