I agree with you comments, and I¹ve just added a feedback to the R27
discussion
Benoit Suzanne
Widget Factory Project Manager - Orange Labs - FT/RD/SIRP/SOL/SLAM
t. +33 (0)145 298 198 - m. +33 (0)680 287 553
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL
Hi,
Thomas, to help me with the editorial process, it would be really
helpful if you could please check the whole security section in the
Req doc and raise any further concerns you might have with the text as
is [1]. Below are some changes I've made to the Req doc based on the
discussion below.
Hi everyone,
I read the Web IDL WD with great interest. But the document says it's only
a specification for use by specifications that define interfaces. So it's a
specification for specification from my understanding. If my memory is not
at fault, there was a Member Submission by webMethods
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:19:07 +0200, Han (Collin) Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anybody here can tell the truth?
Web IDL is a replacement for OMGIDL. When we tried coming up with a name
using Web as prefix seemed appropriate. I don't think anybody had
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-widl-970922
Ian Hickson wrote:
DOM2 Traversal and Range has a number of problems, and really needs a
rewrite. However, in the absence of the resources to do that, I realised
that we could settle for releasing some errata. Arguably we as a working
group have somewhat the authority to do that, so here's a
Hi WebApps Fans-
This is a reminder that we will have a DOM 3 Events telcon today, 03
September.
The regular time is Wednesdays, 18:30-20:00 UTC. See the DOM3 Events
wiki page for timezones adjustments. [1]
The tentative agenda is as follows:
1. Convene, take roll, review agenda, plan next
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Olli Pettay wrote:
So I still propose that all the mutations to DOM are handled in a
consistent way and that the definition of insertNode doesn't need to be
changed. It is ACID3 which requires a small change.
It seems far more useful to just say the mutation events
Hello Collin.
Han (Collin) Xu:
I read the Web IDL WD with great interest. But the document says it's only
a specification for use by specifications that define interfaces. So it's a
specification for specification from my understanding.
Yes that’s right. By itself, it’s not really of any
Hi Marcos,
My response is late (the review happened just before vacation and other
things...), but here it is:
I'm not sure there is a semantically useful way to declare/assess resource
dependencies (currently), but that would be the goal. In the meantime simple
disclosure is better than the
Hi Marcos,
Responding a little late (vacations etc),
The CCPP use I've proposed is fairly simple, ala the delivery of a link to a
capabilities document that is hosted on a web server, and semantically useful.
This is what mobile devices have done for years via the OMA UAProf (using the
Anne Cameron,
Thank you for your explanation!
Cheers,
Collin
-Original Message-
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web IDL? An IDL for the Web?
On Wed, 03
Title: Re: ISSUE-17: Widgets (not just widget engines) should be able to specify which proxies they communicate through
Hi all,
Re the resolution below, I request that this be re-opened as I had also raised a similar comment:
Rxx. Default Use of Runtime Environment Configured Proxy
A
12 matches
Mail list logo
