Hi,
This is a set of architectural comments to the FileReader API, ProgressEvents
and the design patterns for DAP.
For DAP in [1] I propose the following consistency requirement (still [1] is a
very early draft with bugs):
All APIs MUST follow the same convention when handling callback
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:45:53 +0100, Robert O'Callahan
rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
This suggests that the client should expect --- and the server should
send --- CORS headers such as Access-Control-Allow-Origin:* in HTTP error
responses for public resources. Does that make sense? The spec seems
Hi all,
Widget interface spec ready for publication (Last Call) [1]. Will be out
sometime today (if not already published).
And test suite files are now online [2].
Enjoy in moderation!
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/
[2]
/test-suite/
Note this spec was formally published as the Widgets APIs and Events
spec.
If you have any comments re this LCWD:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-apis-20091117/
Please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by 8 December at the latest.
-Art Barstow
Le mardi 17 novembre 2009 à 12:01 -0500, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
And test suite files are now online [2].
[[ ++ MWTS WG ]]
[2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/
To be fair, that work only represents Marcos’s efforts so far — I did
contribute some test cases, but they
Hi,
A couple of comments to the latest PC.
7.4
Media type attribute
Media type attribute defines the grammar and refers to RFC2045/6.
What about referring to RFC4288 that includes the grammar required for MIME
registration [1]? (I have no strong opinion about this point, though.)
Numeric
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yay!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
WebKit presently supports sending File. It does not support FileData
yet.
Is Content-Type set to anything specific if the author has
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Yay!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
WebKit presently supports sending File. It does not support
FileData
yet.
Is
Greetings Paul :)
At Osmosoft, we took some time to collectively read the File API
Editor's Working Draft 28 October 2009:
Thank you very much for taking the time, and sending your review
comments. My responses below:
Overall we welcome the formalization of access to local files,
=JeffH wrote:
In talking with a couple folks in the past few days, it seems that there
already is some thinking about adding some additional directives (aka
header
field value tokens) to the STS header field. One such idea is an
EVonly flag with nominal semantics of accept only an EV cert.
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
What if the @type is derived from unverified metadata and the UA relies on the
underlying OS (assuming the file is local) ?
Does it mean that the UAs should always sniff to ensure that the @type is
correct?
Should we apply the procedure similar to the one from PC
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux d...@w3.org wrote:
Le mardi 17 novembre 2009 à 12:01 -0500, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
And test suite files are now online [2].
[[ ++ MWTS WG ]]
[2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/test-suite/
To be fair, that work only
Julian Reschke wrote:
Arun Ranganathan wrote:
The latest revision of the FileAPI editor's draft is available here:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
...
4. A suggestion to *not* have a separate scheme (filedata:) in lieu
of urn:uuid:uuid[2] has been the basis of a rewrite of that
Greetings Marcin,
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. My comments below:
In my opinion some part of the design from ProgressEvents is taken over in
FileReader API too directly.
Specifically the event names are the same as within the ProgressEvents, but I
assume they should be adjusted to
Eric,
I recall you saying at TPAC that you wanted to keep the Blob
interface as small as possible, since it seemed likely to get used in
a lot of places. I think that's an excellent goal, but of course,
having said that, I am immediately going to suggest that you add
something to it.
Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Is there a particular reason why a specific URI scheme needs to be
called out at all?
(there are other schemes that may be more flexible, for instance
because they allow using a UUID/String pair for identification).
This is a useful question to answer :)
I assume
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've
come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this
specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for
last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've
come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on
this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it
out for last call. (2)
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've
come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on
this specification, and, hence, we
On 11/17/2009 02:42 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
It might be worth explicitly mentioning that CORS headers can (and
sometimes should) be included in error responses, perhaps with an
example of when that would make sense. Maybe I'm over-paranoid but it
just struck me (and Jeff Walden) as
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and
I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1]
22 matches
Mail list logo
