Le 08/02/2010 13:29, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2010, at 16:18 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Cyril Concolatocyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
So I'm wondering how should the widget object be implemented in a UA
that does not support the window object ?
Yeah,
Hi Marcos,
Le 08/02/2010 16:56, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Cyril Concolato
* The spec says:
When an object implementing the Widget interface is instantiated, if a user
agent has not previously associated a storage area with the instance of a
widget, then the user
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Le 08/02/2010 13:29, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2010, at 16:18 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Cyril Concolatocyril.concol...@enst.fr
wrote:
So I'm wondering how should the widget
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Le 08/02/2010 16:56, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Cyril Concolato
As of WebIDL , I believe the notations are equivalent. Regardless, I
have added an example. Please see
On 8 Feb 2010, at 17:50, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
- Somewhat detailed considerations around CONNECT, TRACE, and TRACK
(flagged in the text of the specification, but not called out in the
security section; 4.6.1).
What is the reason for duplicating this information?
It will be useful
On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
- Considerations around DNS rebinding.
Why would these be specific to XMLHttpRequest?
These indeed apply to just about any specification that uses a same-origin
policy. But that's not a justification for
Hi Cyril,
On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:20 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 04/02/2010 13:35, Robin Berjon a écrit :
It would be a lot simpler if the secretariat would just send an email to
this list!
I agree with you it would be much simpler, but that's not my choice.
Well, you could vote with your
On Feb 9, 2010, at 09:54 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
My mistake. I had not realized that. But again, the question is why put the
widget object on the window object, apart from it being a black hole. Why not
put it in the global object. What's wrong with that? It would easier to
specify. What's
Hi Cyril,
On Feb 9, 2010, at 09:52 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 08/02/2010 13:26, Robin Berjon a écrit :
I'm not sure what you mean? The preference storage should remain available
across instantiations of the widget. This could probably be rephrased though.
I think that maybe there should be
Robin,
Le 09/02/2010 13:41, Robin Berjon a écrit :
Hi Cyril,
On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:20 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 04/02/2010 13:35, Robin Berjon a écrit :
It would be a lot simpler if the secretariat would just send an email to this
list!
I agree with you it would be much simpler, but
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:13:49 +0100, Thomas Roessler t...@w3.org wrote:
On 8 Feb 2010, at 17:50, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Well, I didn't mean it literally, but that's what it would come down
to, no?
Again, please explain within the spec what the security reasons are for
this specific
On 9 Feb 2010, at 14:30, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Again, please explain within the spec what the security reasons are for this
specific profile of HTTP. It'll help people understand the spec a few years
down the road.
I'm not an expert on the reasons so I'd prefer not to. I believe I
Doug, All,
On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:25 AM, ext Doug Schepers wrote:
We are interested in comments to refine the charter before
submitting it
to the Advisory Committee and W3C management for review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/Overview.html
The changes from the current [Charter]
Hello,
I noticed a slight inconsistency in the Web SQL Database Spec on
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/Overview.html (version Feb 04, 2010)
The example in section 1 does not match to the API description in the
following sections.
E.g. consider the lines
db.readTransaction(function (t) {
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:37:01 +0100, Eric Westenberger
eric.westenber...@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed a slight inconsistency in the Web SQL Database Spec on
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/Overview.html (version Feb 04, 2010)
The example in section 1 does not match to the API description
On 9 Feb 2010, at 09:22, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@enst.fr
wrote:
Le 08/02/2010 13:29, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Feb 5, 2010, at 16:18 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Cyril
On 9 Feb 2010, at 12:49, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Cyril,
On Feb 9, 2010, at 09:52 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 08/02/2010 13:26, Robin Berjon a écrit :
I'm not sure what you mean? The preference storage should remain
available across instantiations of the widget. This could probably
be
Hi Doug,
There are a couple of additional areas it would be useful to consider
for future work in the Widgets space, specifically:
- inter-widget communication (both single-user and multi-user, e.g.
collaboration)
- social web APIs for widgets (e.g. friends, friends-of)
The latter is a
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
HTTPbis should address this threat in the security considerations section,
and should strongly consider making it a MUST-level requirement for servers
to check that the Host header is a host they serve. If HTTP had that
On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
HTTPbis should address this threat in the security considerations section,
and should strongly consider making it a MUST-level requirement for servers
to check that the
2010/2/9 Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:37:01 +0100, Eric Westenberger
eric.westenber...@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed a slight inconsistency in the Web SQL Database Spec on
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/Overview.html (version Feb 04, 2010)
The example
21 matches
Mail list logo
