Original Message
Subject:RfC: LCWD of Web Storage ; deadline November 15
Resent-Date:Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:04:52 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:04:19 -0400
From: ext Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
To: public-webapps
On Nov 3, 2011, at 05:38 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
Well, we may get together more frequently than just the annual TPAC meeting
week. If folks think that would be useful (e.g. in 6 months), please speak up
and we can take it from there. Otherwise, WebApps' next f2f meeting is during
the 2012
On Nov 7, 2011, at 20:52 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
One theme that was easy to observe at the conference was the pondering
around who those mysterious consumers of what we do are, how to reach
them, and how to reason about them. I heard people speak of Web
Authors and Web Developers and making
Below is a followup on the short discussion we had on October 31 re the
HTML Editing APIs ...
On 11/1/11 10:05 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
The DRAFT minutes from the October 31 f2f meeting are in the following
document and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/31-webapps-minutes.html
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
My summary is: although HTML Editing APIs is in scope for WebApps, and we
agreed to use public-webapps for related discussions [1], given no one has
agreed to actively drive the spec in WebApps, we will not include it
Hi Boris,
This is my current thinking, although this blends/steals a lot of ideas
from TPAC:
There are two kinds of components—ones that are a refinement of something
in HTML, like a select element or a button; and ones that have no genuine
peer in HTML.
This is the litmus test: If you were
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14727
Summary: Deleting doesn't handle non-normalized sublists
correctly
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13976
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14729
Summary: Inline formatting should add wrappers inside empty
blocks
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13831
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14729
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13973
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
During the October 31 meeting, we discussed [1] various additions,
changes and deletions for WebApps' current charter [2]. To consolidate
the various proposals, I created the following doc:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/CharterChanges
My expectation is that Doug will this information
On 11/8/11 10:32 AM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
There are two kinds of components—ones that are a refinement of
something in HTML, like a select element or a button; and ones that have
no genuine peer in HTML.
This is the litmus test: If you were writing this today, would you start
with a div or
I propose using the mail list and then after we get consensus, the wiki
is updated accordingly.
On 11/8/11 1:04 PM, ext James Hawkins wrote:
To clarify, should we comment on this thread or in the wiki?
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13893
Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Should IDBIndex (and IDBIndexSync) expose a readonly boolean multientry
attribute reflecting the multientry flag of the index?
The index's unique flag is exposed in this way. Is there a reason the
multientry flag is not?
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Monday, October 10, 2011 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6,
Under 'Additions Agreed':
* Web Intents - this will be a joint deliverable with DAPI WG
Pedantically, not politically: My recollection is that the agreement was
only to add Web Intents to the Webapps charter (neither accepting nor
denying a joint deliverable with DAPI). The status of the joint
Yes! Please file a bug on this. We really should be tracking these types of
things in bugs as we approach last call. We noticed tidy that .cmp still
returns reversed results for example.
/ Jonas
On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, Joshua Bell jsb...@chromium.org wrote:
Should IDBIndex (and
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:09 PM, David Grogan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The firing of error events on the transaction should only be of two types:
propagation error events
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14735
Summary: [IndexedDB] Add multientry attribute to IDBIndex
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Right now there is no simple way to sanitise HTML content by stripping it
of any potentially malicious HTML such as scripts etc.
In the innerHTML in DocumentFragment thread I suggested following the
sandbox attribute approach that can be applied to iframes. I've moved this
out into its own
The clipboard events http://www.w3.org/TR/clipboard-apis/ spec has some
text about HTML sanitization. It might be good to make sure any work in
this area is shared.
Daniel
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 17:10, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
Providing concise, easy and XSS safe ways to generate a
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote:
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:09 PM, David Grogan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2011 2:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The firing of error
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12510
Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Yes! By surface I meant bubble, in other words the request errors will
continue to bubble up to the onerror handler of the transaction but the fatal
errors won't ever be accessible via the onerror handler of the transaction.
Israel
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 5:35 PM, David Grogan wrote:
On
On 11/8/11 8:50 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 7, 2011, at 20:52 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
One theme that was easy to observe at the conference was the pondering
around who those mysterious consumers of what we do are, how to reach
them, and how to reason about them. I heard people speak of
Given that this type of sandbox would work very differently from the
iframe sandbox, I think reusing the same attribute name would be
confusing.
Additionally, what's the behavior if you remove the attribute? What if
you do elem.innerHTML += foo on the element after having removed the
sandbox? Or
Also, a div doesn't represent a security boundary. It's difficult to
sandbox something unless you have a security boundary around it.
IMHO, an easy way to solve this problem is to just exposes an
HTMLParser object, analogous to DOMParser, which folks can use to
safely parse HTML, e.g., from
30 matches
Mail list logo
