On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:45:30 +0100, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I don't see a reason why we should call the member urn. URL is much
more consistent with other parts of the Web platform and works just as
well. I thought we agreed on this previously so
Hi Tyler,
Some parts of the protocol are not clear to me. Can you please clarify
the following :
1 In msg 1, what script context is the browser running in ? Site A or
Site B ? (in other words who initiates the whole protocol ?)
2 Msg 3 is a form POST or a XHR POST ? If the latter , 5 needs to be
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Bil Corry b...@corry.biz wrote:
Would LockCA prevent the site from loading if it encountered a new cert from
the same CA?
My understanding is that it would not.
Or are you talking about a site that wants to switch CAs and is using LockCA?
I think Gervase
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 17:47 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
I would be concerned with leaving file writing to DAP, because a
widely held view in DAP seems to be that security can be ignored while
designing APIs and added back later with an external policy file
mechanism.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
This is really getting into fantasy-land... Writing a file and hoping that
the user actually opens up explorer/finder/whatever and browses to some
folder deep within the profile directory, and then double clicks something?
Telling a user click here and run blah to get a pony is so much easier.
2009/11/12 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
This is really getting into fantasy-land... Writing a file and hoping that
the user actually opens up explorer/finder/whatever and browses to some
folder deep within the profile directory, and then double clicks something?
Telling a user click
2009/11/12 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc:
2009/11/12 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
This is really getting into fantasy-land... Writing a file and hoping that
the user actually opens up explorer/finder/whatever and browses to some
folder deep within the profile directory, and then
On 11/11/09 15:25, Bil Corry wrote:
Would LockCA prevent the site from loading if it encountered a new
cert from the same CA?
No. Hence the name - lock _CA_. :-P
(BTW, I'm not subscribed to public-webapps; you'll need to CC me on any
conversation you want me in.)
Or are you talking about a
2009/11/12 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
2009/11/12 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
This is really getting into fantasy-land... Writing a file and hoping
that
the user actually opens up explorer/finder/whatever and browses to some
folder deep within the profile directory, and
2009/11/12 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
2009/11/12 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
2009/11/12 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com:
This is really getting into fantasy-land... Writing a file and hoping
that
the user actually opens up explorer/finder/whatever and browses to
Hello everyone,
I hope you all had a fruitful meeting during the TPAC!
Here is a short summary for Media Annotations WG (MAWG) 5th F2F meeting.
The charter of the group is to facilitate for web developers to access metadata
in multimedia objects. Our approach is to devise a metadata ontology
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It would however be consistent with WebSocket.URL, input type=url,
url(image), EventSource.URL, HTMLDocument.URL, etc. Keeping the
author-facing APIs the same would be a good thing IMO.
+1 I found the use of the URN scheme a little opaque and magical.
--
Paul
Anne, All,
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for
comments is November 18.
I support this publication.
Assuming we do get consensus
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:49:22 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
1. Length of the comment period. 3 weeks is minimum and would be OK with
me, especially since this spec has been previously published as a LCWD.
Sounds good.
2. Who do we ask to review the LC, both W3C WGs and
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:51:56 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:45 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:21:06 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009,
Hi,
What about semantic distinctions?
tag as proposed till now seems to be too detailed and does not scale.
For HTML/XHR:
script means an executable content retrieved from the remote host.
img, video etc means a displayable content retrieved from the remote host.
iframe means a container
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi,
What about semantic distinctions?
tag as proposed till now seems to be too detailed and does not scale.
For HTML/XHR:
script means an executable content retrieved from the remote host.
img,video etc means a displayable content retrieved from the remote host.
iframe
The draft minutes from the November 12 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 19 November 2009
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:03:07 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Anyway, do you have opinions on the synchronous case? Do you agree we
should use TIMEOUT_ERR there? What do the people from Microsoft think?
Hi Marcos,
I understand that too many details may not work or be an obstacle in the
adoption.
However, I derive that from the security point of view we still would like to
distinguish at least between executable and non-executable content.
The distinction between retrievable and submissible
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I understand that too many details may not work or be an obstacle in the
adoption.
However, I derive that from the security point of view we still would like to
distinguish at least between executable and non-executable content.
I think this is established
Hi Marcos,
I saw that the test suite for TWI was discussed on the WebApps call
today:
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#item05
Since the discussion didn’t allude at all to my mail below about
generated test cases, I thought I would point you to it explicitly in
case you had missed
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On the other hand, automated test generation can generate a large number
of test cases and is less prone to human errors. But, at the same time,
it cannot test some things that are written in the prose. For example, a
AU must
Hi Dom,
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I saw that the test suite for TWI was discussed on the WebApps call
today:
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-wam-minutes.html#item05
Since the discussion didn’t allude at all to my mail below about
generated test cases, I thought I would point
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 à 17:35 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On the other hand, automated test generation can generate a large number
of test cases and is less prone to human errors. But, at the same time,
it cannot test some things that are written in
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 à 17:52 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I complete agree that manual tests bring a lot of value, but I think it
would be unwise to refuse automated tests that express exactly what the
spec expresses — in particular, they can be extremely useful to detect
bugs in
Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le jeudi 12 novembre 2009 à 17:52 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I complete agree that manual tests bring a lot of value, but I think it
would be unwise to refuse automated tests that express exactly what the
spec expresses — in particular, they can be
Hi Marcos,
Opera 9.5 running on Windows Mobile 6.1 and Opera 10 running on PC both allow
access to scripts and images from different domains than a widget was obtained
from. I have tested this and can provide a working example (see below for the
index.html - package it yourself and see).
Thus
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item12
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0477.html
From a
30 matches
Mail list logo
