Le 02/09/2011 15:32, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Cyril - unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume you are satisfied
with the way your comments have been addressed:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/
Anne - assuming Cyril is agreeable with the way his comments were addressed,
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:47:08 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
Also, scripts shouldn't be able to call clearData() during copy/cut
events, correct?
Why not? Is it useful in any other context?
It can be abused to prevent copy and paste from a site. But maybe there
are
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:44:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:47:08 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
Also, scripts shouldn't be able to call clearData() during copy/cut
events, correct?
Why not? Is it useful in any other
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:13:35 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
As in LINK rel=prefetch and LINK rel=stylesheet?
Yes. But this would apply to img too of course; maybe they can become a
blob URL or some such?
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12434
Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 01:33:40 +0200, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
The description for DataTransfer.setData [1] says: Calling setData()
from a paste event handler must not modify the data that is inserted,
and must not modify the data on the clipboard.
That second phrase is very
That second phrase is very confusing. Isn't it the objective of
listening to cut/copy events, to possibly prevent the default action
and set the data calling setData, therefore changing clipboard contents
?
Yes, but not *paste* events. Pasting should never alter the data on the
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:14:10 +0200, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi !
The spec for setData [1] states that this method when calling from a
cut/copy event sets new data on the clipboard. Unfortunately, this is
insufficient to implement the typical copy to clipboard button
It
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:14:27 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:13:35 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
As in LINK rel=prefetch and LINK rel=stylesheet?
Yes. But this would apply to img too of course; maybe they can become
a blob
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:45:07 +0200, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
Perhaps paste should be emphasized
Will be :)
--
Hallvord R. M. Steen, Core Tester, Opera Software
http://www.opera.com http://my.opera.com/hallvors/
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:47:28 +0200, Hallvord R. M. Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:14:10 +0200, João Eiras joao.ei...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi !
The spec for setData [1] states that this method when calling from a
cut/copy event sets new data on the clipboard.
While the discussion about preventing abuse in clipboards is happening, allow
me to suggest something I recently found:
In the page below is a fairly simple script that succeeds in preventing the
user to select with the mouse, hence copy, in Firefox 6, Safari 5.1, and a few
others.
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:03:25 +0200, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net
wrote:
While the discussion about preventing abuse in clipboards is happening,
allow me to suggest something I recently found:
In the page below is a fairly simple script that succeeds in preventing
the user to select
On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I
will proceed with a request
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Anyway, my point was just that Philippe's statement that an editor's
draft has no special status is false, and I stand by this:
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 13:47, Jarred Nicholls wrote:
On the contrary, but still supporting your point, as an implementer I always
reference editor's drafts as the authoritative source given they are most
up-to-date. This could be considered bad practice analogous to pulling WebKit
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:14:06 +0200, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
wrote:
Apologies, I've only recently caught up with tr/domcore.
Glad you are reviewing!
http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#exceptions
Please review http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html as
there have
Please change the subject as appropriate.
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:49:02 +0200, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
wrote:
It seems to me that the following section documents DOM Core's proposed
improvements to DOM3Events:
http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#dom-events
It probably requires some
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.comwrote:
Pretty much everything in this spec can be abused to cause nuisance.
Personally, I'm less than thrilled to see an API giving sites more ability
to mangle what I copy. Clipboard hijacking scripts that add read more
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com
wrote:
I propose calling it Web Core.
WC1 (Web Core version 1).
It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep DOM in the
name given that everything it builds on did too.
The Web semantic is popular,
Le 5 sept. 2011 à 16:50, Glenn Maynard a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Hallvord R. M. Steen hallv...@opera.com
wrote:
Pretty much everything in this spec can be abused to cause nuisance.
Personally, I'm less than thrilled to see an API giving sites more ability to
mangle what I
On 9/5/11 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard
ch...@jumis.com wrote:
I propose calling it Web Core.
WC1 (Web Core version 1).
It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep DOM in
the name given that everything it builds on
Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest
we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD
we publish a couple of weeks later).
I propose calling it Web Core.
WC1 (Web Core version 1).
Without hesitation, I concur. +1
Jarred
It needs DOM
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13870
Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They love
cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable then the
Editor's Draft. It's simply nonsense, but the W3C Process document seems to
codify this.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I will
proceed with a
Hi Julian,
On Monday, 5 September 2011 at 20:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They
love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable
then the Editor's
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jarred Nicholls jar...@extjs.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren
On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2011-09-05 16:13, Marcos Caceres wrote:
...
Most don't, in my experience. Specially those from other consortia. They
love cling the dated specs and then pretend they are somehow more stable
then the Editor's
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The CfC to publish a
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200,
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page (e.g.
flash advertisement 100% cpu) and I am confident they will not that some
pages mingle with their copy ability or actually provide a service to do so.
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
the problem is not the being dated, but how they are published. As far
as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of
things, where Internet Drafts
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14037
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ann...@opera.com,
Le 6 sept. 2011 à 00:51, Glenn Maynard a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Paul Libbrecht p...@hoplahup.net wrote:
Slowly, users start to see the disadvantages of a dirty web-page (e.g. flash
advertisement 100% cpu) and I am confident they will not that some pages
mingle with their
37 matches
Mail list logo
