On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this
stood out:
In the default policy, a user agent must deny access to network
resources external to the widget by default, whether this
On 4 May 2010, at 14:10, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Right. I have clarified this:
[[
A user agent must not navigate the browsing context of a widget
instance through the openURL() method: the concept of navigate is
defined in [HTML5]. This restriction is imposed so an arbitrary web
site cannot
On May 4, 2010, at 19:29 , Scott Wilson wrote:
I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this
stood out:
In the default policy, a user agent must deny access to network resources
external to the widget by default, whether this access is requested through
APIs
Hi:
I don't known how to use widget access request policy, is any examples for
it, thanks.
best my regards!
+public-webapps, -team-webapps
On 2010-05-04 18:23, Arthur Barstow wrote:
The Selectors API Candidate says:
[[
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-selectors-api-20091222/
There are several known implementations believed to be complete and
interoperable (or on the point of being so) and the WebApps
Hi Manu,
Thanks for your e-mail (and the succinct list of relevant questions).
All - can anyone in the WebApps WG/Community commit to a quick high-
level review of the RDFa DOM API draft?
Manu - FYI, we've got a significant number of specs in progress [1]
so I don't think you should block
Hi Manu,
On May 1, 2010, at 08:03 , Manu Sporny wrote:
This is a call to see if anyone from this WG can do a quick high-level
review of the RDFa DOM API. We are planning a FPWD in a week or two and
would like to see if what we have so far is a good start, makes sense to
those unfamiliar with
Hi all,
this is the official Vodafone feedback on the proposed rewriting of DigSig.
The spec looks good to us. We don't have any objection to removing the
requirement on the signer to order the signature files. Getting the validator
to do it instead is fine and is probably preferable.
Our
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On May 4, 2010, at 19:29 , Scott Wilson wrote:
I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this
stood out:
In the default policy, a user agent must deny access to network resources
external to
On 5 May 2010, at 10:40, Robin Berjon wrote:
On May 4, 2010, at 19:29 , Scott Wilson wrote:
I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this
stood out:
In the default policy, a user agent must deny access to network resources
external to the widget by default,
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 May 2010, at 10:40, Robin Berjon wrote:
On May 4, 2010, at 19:29 , Scott Wilson wrote:
I've just been reading through the WARP spec again, and in particular this
stood out:
In the default policy, a user
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi André, All,
Below, André asks for XBL2 implementation status. I think the last time this
was discussed on public-webapps was June 2009 [1] (and a somewhat related
thread in March 2010 on www-tag [2]).
All - if
On May 5, 2010, at 9:40 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
Our only other comment on the specification is related to the new
requirement for the validator to support C14N11:
A validator MUST support [C14N11] to process a ds:Reference that
specifies [C14N11] as a canonicalization method.
If we
Hi all,
as part of its work the DAP WG has been developing a System Information API.
The abstract describes it thus:
This specification defines an API to provide Web applications with access to
various properties of the system which they are running on. Specifically,
properties pertaining to
2010/5/5 石梦军 talking1...@126.com:
Hi:
I don't known how to use widget access request policy, is any examples
for it, thanks.
We have a few:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/#usage-example
--
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi all,
just a minor comment found by build a test case :
Section7.1. Common Constraints for Signature Generation and Validation
1. [...]
2. [...]
3. For each ds:Reference element:
1. The URI attribute MUST be a zip relative path
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
I have not been able to test IE9 because I don't have access to Windows
Vista or 7. I would appreciate it if anyone who has a copy of the last
First of all, I should note that I don't expect that mozilla will implement
this spec anytime soon, if at all. The user value / privacy risk ratio is
simply too low.
If we do implement it, we would have to agressively deny all requests until
the user had taken the first step and actively asked to
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi André, All,
Below, André asks for XBL2 implementation status. I think the last time this
was discussed on public-webapps was June 2009 [1]
On 5/5/2010 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On the other hand, a lot of even the most basic tasks probably should be
done within a transaction. But if the easiest way to do something is to
just run it outside of a transaction, I'm guessing a good portion of users
(including tutorial websites,
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 5/5/2010 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On the other hand, a lot of even the most basic tasks probably should be
done within a transaction. But if the easiest way to do something is to
just run it outside of a
On 5/5/2010 1:09 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'd also worry that if creating the transaction were completely transparent
to the user that they might not think to close it either. (I'm mainly
thinking about copy-and-paste coders here.)
I should have been more clear. That statement goes along with
Hi,
we've updated the API proposal (at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhttrq5v_0c8k5vkdh).
We've covered most of the comments related to other APIs, including CommonJS.
Could you take another look? (you can leave comments in the document
or post them back to this thread)
Regards,
Nebojsa
23 matches
Mail list logo
