On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Cameron McCormackc...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Darin Adler:
What about too many arguments, and ignoring extra ones? Is that
settled?
It seems consistent with current implementations to ignore extra
arguments. That approach might go against the desire to maximise the
On Jun 26, 2009, at 07:49 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It's also not clear to me if a BDB-level API is sufficient for
developer needs.
That's something that we should nail down early this time around. I
tend to think that sufficient for developer needs means good enough
that one can
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus
and strong multilateral implementor interest on LocalStorage and
Hi, Maciej-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/26/09 1:49 AM):
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be used
by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though it is open
source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It seems unlikely
that non-open-source
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Doug Schepersschep...@w3.org wrote:
Hi, Maciej-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/26/09 1:49 AM):
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be used
by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though it is open
source, the
+1
Stable specification moving faster in the standards track will definitely bring
more implementations.
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
The plan of record would be to split out the SQL Storage section into
its own spec, with an alternate spec edited by Nikunj, and to publish an
updated draft of Web Storage that points to both those other drafts.
This way, all parts of the web
Hi Cameron,
Thank for your comments.
It is clear now.
I’ll probably loosen the IDL grammar to allow
sequences of square-bracketed extended attributes instead of requiring
them to be all in one, but for now you do need to have them all in one,
comma separated.
As for me it is not necessary to
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough
consensus and strong
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:54 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think the Web Storage draft (I assume by this you mean the
remaining draft that would define LocalStorage and SessionStorage)
needs to link to either of the other drafts.
It is customary, when something is split out of a draft, to
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:43:10 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
FWIW, Opera is implementing SQL storage too.
That's great news! Having multiple independent implementations will, I
hope, provide more reason to advance the
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:09:43 +0200, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
+1
Stable specification moving faster in the standards track will
definitely bring more implementations.
To be clear, when we decided to implement this feature it was still part
of the HTML5
Where it is specified did not really have an
impact on whether we would do it or not.
Agreed. The place does not matter. Stability does, IMHO.
I would also be somewhat hesitant
to say that separate drafts necessarily move faster.
At least there is a chance.
It seems more feasible to implement a
Woops. The validator error messages go away when the ... are removed
from the DigestValues. http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/#example
Attached is a signature1.xml template which validates to
http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-rngschema/ with rnv for
me at least. :)
?xml version=1.0
Please don't skimp on due diligence before making such strong
statements. It creates unnecessary friction. More details below.
On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers,
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have proposed to Mozilla a solution that provides access to an
organized
key-value database such as that
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:15 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 07:49 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It's also not clear to me if a BDB-level API is sufficient for
developer needs.
That's something that we should nail down early this time around. I
tend to think that sufficient for
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/25/09 7:20 PM):
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just
like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals
On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Doug Schepersschep...@w3.org
wrote:
Hi, Maciej-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/26/09 1:49 AM):
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be
used
by WebKit or Gecko to implement the
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
Please don't skimp on due diligence before making such strong
statements. It creates unnecessary friction. More details below.
Similarly, I'd ask you to make
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be used
by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though it is open
source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It seems unlikely
On Friday 2009-06-26 11:27 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Note that mozilla has since long made a commitment not to ship code
that is not compatible with all of GPL, LGPL *and* MPL. So unless the
BDB license is compatible with all those three we couldn't use BDB.
I think our (Mozilla's)
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be
used by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though
it is open source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It
seems unlikely that
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I don't really understand what we're trying to prevent here.
Confused deputies such as XSRF problems. Original paper is at
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/ConfusedDeputy.html.
Maciej, David, Jeremy, Doug, others,
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's license.
I have asked our legal team to clarify what they mean by the
I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley DB
to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only interested in
understanding how to do look up by one or more of them, please skip to
slide 51.
If this doesn't help, I can write up another explanation for the
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's license.
To be clear, I wasn't expressing any
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
Consider two web-applications: photo.example.com, a photo manager; and
printer.example.net, a photo printer. Both of these web-apps use storage
provided by storage.example.org. We're going to print a photo stored at:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing of
Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing issues.
First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the erstwhile
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's
Response inline below, so keep scrolling...
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
Consider two web-applications: photo.example.com, a photo manager; and
printer.example.net, a photo printer. Both of these web-apps use storage
On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing
of Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing
issues.
First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the
erstwhile SleepyCat license
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and
programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide
resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three
deliverables.
We already have a broad charter and
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley
DB to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only
interested in understanding how to do look up by one or more of
them, please skip to slide 51.
If this
Jonas Sicking:
Yeah, ideally I would want to treat too many arguments the same as too few.
However I'm more concerned about breaking existing content here if all
commonly used UAs consistently ignore them.
I would be willing to give it a try though, or at least once I've
checked with the
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Tyler Close wrote:
I don't understand why photo.example.com would trust the identifier
from printer.example.net if the latter could be in the same namespace
as the namespace photo.example.com uses for its own data.
Are you saying the two web-apps should not be
Marcin Hanclik:
A correction / question to what I stated below:
window.bondi – “namespace object” for ::bondi
In BONDI we did not foresee that.
We would like bondi to be the root.
Which of the following do you foresee to exist:
1. window.bondi.* only
2. bondi.* only
3. both from the
39 matches
Mail list logo
