On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Cameron McCormack:
Seems reasonable to state that. I’ve added a note to do that when
I get some time to allocate to editing Web IDL again.
Oliver Hunt:
I actually thought about this some more, and realised i'm not
Hi Garrett.
Cameron McCormack:
We could certainly add similar language for the Java language binding
section too, though I think there’s less scope for those conversions to
throw exceptions (maybe ones like OutOfMemoryException).
Garrett Smith:
I'm not sure, but I think you might have
Conceivably the language could be a relatively simple and broad
statement along the lines of:
Any type conversions needed for a language binding should occur
before an API function is called, if a type conversion fails for any
reason the call should be aborted
However this doesn't address
Hi,
Thomas and I have been scratching our heads offline about security
considerations for the access element (mostly for the subdomain
wildcard), can we please add those to the agenda for the next call?
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Frederick Hirsch
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Mark
Please find responses inline. Thanks for the review.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group wrote:
Hi Art, All,
Please find below
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Frederick Hirsch
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
if there is no need for the Created property in the Widgets Signature spec I
suggest we remove it, though keep what we have in the Signature Properties
specification.
The less dependencies the better, from my
Below is the draft agenda for the April 23 Widgets Voice Conference
(VC).
Inputs and discussion before the meeting on all of the agenda topics
via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting).
Logistics:
Time: 22:00 Tokyo; 16:00 Helsinki; 15:00 Paris; 14:00
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:23:30 +0100, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Thinking about this some more I rather treat redirects as errors. I
think that will work better as future extension point. It also is more
consistent I think. They are either a point of error or are
transparently
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:23:02 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Anne - other than the redirects issue, are there any other open
issues/actions that must be addressed before a LCWD is published?
I don't think so. I implemented a solution to the redirects problem in the
d. What needs to be done before this spec is feature-complete and
ready for Last Call WD publication?
address editorial comments from Mark, as posted on list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0256.html
can edit this today.
Agree to coordination published update of
You pretty much answered all my questions. Thanks.
I would be support the charter be modified with the original text
about storage APIs
[[
Offline APIs and Structured Storage for enabling local access to Web
application resources when not connected to a network
]]
Nikunj
On Apr 21, 2009,
Vodafone also supports the removal of the Created property from the
Widget 1.0: Digital Signature specification.
Thanks,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: 22 April 2009 12:31
To: Frederick Hirsch
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
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Frederick Hirsch
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
d. What needs to be done before this spec is feature-complete and
ready for Last Call WD publication?
address editorial comments from Mark, as posted on list
I agree that the sentence should be dropped.
I'll take an editorial pass today to remove that sentence, address the
agreed changes on Mark's editorial comments and to remove the Created
material.
Thanks for noting this one.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 22, 2009, at
On 3/12/09 12:25 PM, ivan.demar...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Mmmm.
And how we define more than one viewmode?
I mean, apart from the default one for the content, was not decided to give
to the developer the possibility of declaring what modes the widget supports and how (in
terms of size)?
Two proposals based on Marcos comments
-
which MAY logically contain - if the configuration file is made
mandatory then the MAY should be a MUST
I think it is a MAY, others?
Technically, Mark is correct. But leave it as a MAY (or maybe drop MAY
altogether) because this spec does not
Thanks Frederick and Marcos - responses inline.
Only a couple of questions left :)
Regards,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: marcosscace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Marcos Caceres
Sent: 22 April 2009 11:46
To: Frederick Hirsch; Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
A shorter counter-proposal below ...
On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:56 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Frederick Hirsch
frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
ISSUE-83 states:
Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature
I have updated the widget signature editors draft
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/
1. Removed section 9, Draft update to XML Signature Properties since
XML Security WG plans to publish latest revision of Signature
Properties in conjunction with next Widget Signature publication.
I think the following items are fine and will add them to the spec:
Signing parties are expected to ensure that the dsp:Identifier
signature property value is unique for the widgets that they sign 5.5
and 7.2
I don't think there is anything else, though we need to check the
blogs and
21 matches
Mail list logo
