[From-Origin] on theft

2011-07-23 Thread Glenn Adams
I would suggest not using the word theft, even if placed in quotes. Call it bandwidth leeching or something like that. It certainly is by no means theft by any reasonable definition. theft |θeft|nounthe action or crime of stealing : he was convicted of theft | the latest theft happened at a

[From-Origin] on clickjacking

2011-07-23 Thread Glenn Adams
Under the description of clickjacking, appears causing harm to visitor; however, there is no indication of how this may cause such harm. Please elaborate or refer to an external document that elaborates. G.

[From-Origin] on privacy leakage

2011-07-23 Thread Glenn Adams
The description of privacy leakage doesn't elaborate the issue sufficiently. I'd suggest adding a reference to a more complete, external document that discusses this in detail. G.

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

2011-08-05 Thread Glenn Adams
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: On 8/5/11 8:50 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:22 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 8/4/11 11:47 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: Several documents in the WebApps Working Group are

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

2011-08-10 Thread Glenn Adams
(including corporations) may decide to favor the positions of the WHATWG, but that will not affect the formal, public position of international, national, and industry specific standards and specifications organizations, who will favor the W3C. Regards, Glenn Adams

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

2011-08-10 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: As far as I'm aware, the WHATWG is an unincorporated association, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association. As such, it does

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

2011-08-10 Thread Glenn Adams
thanks for your comment Karl, i have no further contribution on this subject; in any case, I am not a member of the AC list; regards, glenn On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Karl Dubost ka...@opera.com wrote: If I may… this discussion about the merits, status, etc of the two organizations

Re: TAG Comment on

2011-11-15 Thread Glenn Adams
Could you quantify widely? On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: These APIs are quite widely used on the web. It seems unlikely that we'll be able to delete either of them in favor of a single facility. Adam On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Noah Mendelsohn

Re: TAG Comment on

2011-11-15 Thread Glenn Adams
Perhaps. But widely implemented does not necessarily imply widely used. In any case, support for or use of a feature of a WD or CR does not imply it must be present in REC. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM, art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: * From:* ext Glenn Adams [gl...@skynav.com] * * Could

Re: Dropping XMLHttpRequest 1 (just do 2)?

2011-11-27 Thread Glenn Adams
Are you suggesting that the link [1] be changed to forward or refer to the new XHR2 work? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/ If so, then that would be a problem. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Giuseppe Pascale giusep...@opera.comwrote: well, what I was asking is to

Re: CfC: publish WG Note of the old XHR(1); deadline December 8

2011-12-02 Thread Glenn Adams
It is not possible to have only one XHR document. There is already a published CR for XHR1, which will always remain at [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/ The question is what to do with that branch. Moving [1] to a WG Note would help resolve confusion about the

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-05 Thread Glenn Adams
What do you mean by treat content that clearly is UTF-32 as UTF-16-encoded? Do you mean interpreting it as a sequence of unsigned shorts? That would be a direct violation of the semantics of UTF-32, would it not? I'm not advocating the use of UTF-32 for interchange, but it does have the advantage

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-05 Thread Glenn Adams
: * Glenn Adams wrote: What do you mean by treat content that clearly is UTF-32 as UTF-16-encoded? Do you mean interpreting it as a sequence of unsigned shorts? That would be a direct violation of the semantics of UTF-32, would it not? Consider you have ... Content-Type: example/example

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-05 Thread Glenn Adams
the problem now. It seems that the table in step (4) should be changed to interpret an initial FF FE as UTF-16BE only if the following two bytes are not 00. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote

Re: [XHR] responseType json

2011-12-05 Thread Glenn Adams
: On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Glenn Adams wrote: I see the problem now. It seems that the table in step (4) should be changed to interpret an initial FF FE as UTF-16BE only if the following two bytes are not 00. The current text is intentional. UTF-32 is explicitly not supported by the HTML

Web IDL sequenceT and item() method

2011-12-09 Thread Glenn Adams
Hi Cameron, Does the ECMAScript binding for the IDL sequenceT type imply the existence of an item() method as a element accessor, where an element is a property whose property name is an array index? If so, then could describe how it is implied? The reason I ask is because I'm wondering about

Re: Web IDL sequenceT and item() method

2011-12-11 Thread Glenn Adams
In DOM-4 WD, NodeList is now defined as an interface, and not using sequenceT. [1] [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#interface-nodelist From what I can tell, WebIDL sequenceT does not entail providing an item() method, which effectively makes it unusable for any of the pre-existing DOM

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

2011-12-19 Thread Glenn Adams
+1 for Marcos' position. If the W3C performed compliance testing, then it would perhaps be more appropriate to reference specific versions, at least in a compliance test specification. However, the W3C has historically not defined compliance test specifications or perform compliance testing of

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

2011-12-19 Thread Glenn Adams
done historically, i.e., defining the criteria for successful certification); cheers, G. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd jean-claude.dufo...@telecom-paristech.fr wrote: On 19/12/11 16:55 , Glenn Adams wrote: ...However, the W3C has historically not defined compliance test

Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

2011-12-19 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: in other words, I believe that the W3C's tasks do not necessarily have to include normatively defining specific concrete version mappings for dependent spec references; this can be accomplished in (2), which need not be done

Re: Use Cases for Connectionless Push support in Webapps recharter

2012-01-04 Thread Glenn Adams
what are the qualitative differences (if any) between these three use cases? On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Bryan Sullivan bls...@gmail.com wrote: I had an action item to provide some use cases for the Webapps recharter process, related to the Push based on extending server-sent events topic

Re: Use Cases for Connectionless Push support in Webapps recharter

2012-01-08 Thread Glenn Adams
. b) Don't waste bandwidth. c) Don't use the more expensive connection when a less expensive connection is also available. On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: what are the qualitative differences (if any) between these three use cases? On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 5:51

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

2012-01-12 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote: The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it provides correct behavior in all cases. Do you mean this one?

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

2012-01-12 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell k...@google.com wrote

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-23 Thread Glenn Adams
I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed replacement specs reach REC status. G. On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-23 Thread Glenn Adams
. On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed replacement specs reach REC status. Why? The real world of modern spec use and authoring

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I work in an industry where devices are certified against final specifications, some of which are mandated by laws and regulations. The current

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Ms2ger wrote:I propose that we add a pointer to the contemporary specification to the following specifications: ... * DOM 2 Style (CSSOM) * DOM 2 Traversal and Range (DOM4) ... As far as I am aware, CSSOM is

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: Ms2ger, Last September, some obsolescence text was added to the DOM 2 Views REC: [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-**Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I work in an industry where devices are certified against final specifications, some of which are mandated by laws and regulations. The current DOM-2

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
don't need to worry himself about any progress or status of such document or specification. On 23.1.2012 19:06, Glenn Adams wrote: I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed replacement specs reach REC status. G. Brona

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
clarify, since presumably the process document will apply to any proposed change. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/24/2012 08:33 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert something like: DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert something like: DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress). This addition is tantamount

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: You keep saying this throughout this thread without pointing to specifics. It's impossible to argue with broad, sweeping generalizations like this. So far, you have yet to point to one concrete organization/statute that

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 1/24/12 8:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: 2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org mailto:o...@chromium.org Can we just compromise on the language here? I don't think we'll find agreement on the proper way to do spec

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
: On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote: You keep saying this throughout this thread without pointing to specifics. It's impossible to argue with broad, sweeping generalizations like this. So far, you have yet

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
to DOM4 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I'm sorry, but for some, saying DOM2 (a REC) = DOM4 (a WIP), is the same as saying DOM2 is a WIP. This is because the former can be read as saying that the normative content of DOM2 is now replaced with DOM4

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

2012-01-24 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: Ian, I agree with the sentiment of your response (take DOM4 right now and publish it as a REC). And, were it not for the W3C Process Document, we might do just that. However

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

2012-02-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:39 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 1/31/12 11:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: We have a draft

Re: CfC: Charter addition for Fullscreen API

2012-02-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:09:44 +0100, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: I'm fine with publishing this through WebApps. is there any reason

Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

2012-02-08 Thread Glenn Adams
will there be liaison/participation with I18N Core WG on this work? On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.comwrote: Hi, thanks to Mike and the Google guys, we have http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/

Re: CfC by 02-14: Add IME API to the charter

2012-02-08 Thread Glenn Adams
thanks, i was just checking; i'll defer to Addison and the editor of the proposed work to handle the details On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote: Hi Glenn, @2012-02-08 08:33 -0700: will there be liaison/participation with I18N Core WG on this work? I've

Re: [webcomponents] Considering declarative event handlers

2012-02-08 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote: To make Web Components more usable, I would like to consider providing a way to declare event handlers in markup. As I look over the use cases and try to implement them using the proposed syntax

Re: IME API Use cases editorial feedback

2012-02-29 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/default/use-cases/Overview.html SUN Haitao found the description of the Traditional Chinese IME used as an example in this use cases document somewhat inaccurate.

Re: [FileAPI, common] UTF-16 to UTF-8 conversion

2012-02-29 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.comwrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote: Should the actual UTF-8 encoding algorithm be specified by HTML? I don't know, since I think that Unicode to UTF-8 is pretty

Re: [FileAPI, common] UTF-16 to UTF-8 conversion

2012-02-29 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote: Should the actual UTF-8 encoding algorithm

Re: [FileAPI, common] UTF-16 to UTF-8 conversion

2012-02-29 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: HTML A conforming user agenthttp://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#dfn-conforming-implementation MUST support at least the subset of the functionality defined in HTML that this specification relies upon; in particular

Re: WebSockets -- only TCP?

2012-03-18 Thread Glenn Adams
RFC 6455 defines WSP as a TCP protocol [1] [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-1.5 at present the WebSocket API is nothing more than a thin layer over WSP, and references WSP for all protocol bindings; there is no discarding of UDP involved; it simply is/was not a requirement driving

Re: WebSockets -- only TCP?

2012-03-19 Thread Glenn Adams
no On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Rick van Rein r...@openfortress.nl wrote: Hello, See PeerConnection in http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html Ah, I was looking in the wrong place then :) Is this considered as part of the HTML5 specification?

informal survey - on spec philosophy

2012-03-26 Thread Glenn Adams
It has been stated to me that, at least for open web platform standards, the following statement is true and is shared by the majority: if it isn't written in the spec, it isn't allowed by the spec I happen to disagree with the truth of this, based on my personal experience both with spec

Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

2012-03-26 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 21:40, Glenn Adams wrote: It has been stated to me that, at least for open web platform standards, the following statement is true and is shared by the majority: if it isn't written

Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

2012-03-26 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote: (12/03/27 5:43), Glenn Adams wrote: my position is that, unless somewhere it is documented what the convention associated with means, that it is (1) ambiguous, and (2) can be interpreted in any

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-27 Thread Glenn Adams
Is this really a problem? HTTP defines the form and encoding of the status text, and WebIDL/ES defines the form and encoding of DOMString. Adding an explicit conversion definition seems redundant and overspecified. I would argue the same for all other cases in the spec where it calls out an

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-27 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 3/27/12 2:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: Is this really a problem? Yes. We've run into bug reports in the past of sites sending some pretty random bytes in the HTTP status text, then reading .statusText from script

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-27 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 3/27/12 3:36 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 3/27/12 3:35 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-28 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote: On 2012-03-28 00:35, Glenn Adams wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: On 3/27/12 2:46 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: Is this really a problem

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-28 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:23:15 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: But the HTTP status text is a sequence of bytes, while the return value for statusText is a DOMString. The conversion from one to the other

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-28 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:52:25 +0100, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: Well, that would define a specific, definite algorithm. Never mind that it would introduce random bytes into DOMStrings that may or may not have

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-28 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote: On 2012-03-28 09:48, Glenn Adams wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by citing ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 in the same context. Please elaborate. If you have UTF-8 on the wire and the client handles it as ISO-8859-1

Re: [xhr] statusText is underdefined

2012-03-28 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote: The spec says: Return the HTTP status text. But the HTTP status text is a sequence of bytes, while the return value for statusText is a DOMString. The conversion from one to the other needs to be defined. If I may

Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

2012-04-19 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 13:48, Arthur Barstow wrote: Marcos - would you please enumerate the CR's uses of HTML5 and state whether each usage is to a stable part of HTML5? 3. When getting or setting the

Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

2012-04-19 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:58, Glenn Adams wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com (mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 13:48

Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

2012-04-19 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:58, Glenn Adams wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com

Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

2012-04-19 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:14, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:11, Glenn Adams wrote: in that case, please record an objection on my part just to be clear, I mean an objection

Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

2012-04-19 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 16:57, Glenn Adams wrote: thanks Marcos, I drop my objection; regarding the reference to HTML5, Yay! :) it would be an improvement if you could change section 6.5 from

Re: Howto spec

2012-05-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: Hi, I have made some updates to the howto spec wiki page outlining how you should go about writing a specification, with some emphasis on specifications for APIs. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Howto_spec In

Re: Howto spec

2012-05-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote: This is neat! I especially appreciated the Method/Attribute patterns. I will use this. Should I be concerned about what seems to be a lively competition between ReSpec and Anolis. Do we need this tussle? Can we not

Re: Howto spec

2012-05-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.orgwrote: This is neat! I especially appreciated the Method/Attribute patterns. I will use this. Should I be concerned about what seems to be a lively

Re: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets API; deadline July 18

2012-07-11 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.comwrote: Art wrote: As such, this is a Call for Consensus to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Sockets. Ship it! :) +1

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: var bb = new BlobBuilder() , blob = bb.getBlobFromURL(http://specifiction.com/kitten.png;, GET, { Authorization: Basic DEADBEEF }); Everything is the

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: Why restrict to XHR? How about WebSocket as data source? Websockets support array buffers and therefore by extension any blob/file object. However

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I'm questioning defining a LazyBlob that is solely usable with XHR. It would be better to have a more generic version IMO. Websockets have no content

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: blob = bb.getBlobFromURL(ws://specifiction.com/image/kitten.pnghttp://specifiction.com/kitten.png ) There is no application layer transfer protocol

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: So? Why should lazy blob be specific to HTTP specific semantics when an arbitrary URL is not specific to HTTP? So if you want to have a lazy reader

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: So? Why should lazy blob be specific to HTTP specific semantics when an arbitrary

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: Further, a default behavior in the absence of such an injection might be defined simply to read data from the WS and stuff into the blob. Which kind

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: Can we please stop saying lazy blob? It's a confused and confusing phrase. Blobs are lazy by design. On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: So? Why should lazy blob be specific to HTTP

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: The subject line says Lazy Blob, not Lazy Blob and XHR. For the record, I will object to a LazyBlob solution that is tied solely to XHR, so deal

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I don't particularly care if a default behavior for WS is provided that buffers the entire read stream. Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You don't

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-01 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: Can we please stop saying lazy blob? It's a confused and confusing phrase. Blobs are lazy by design. On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Glenn Adams gl

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: Of course, implementers are free to ignore whatever they want, but last time I checked, the W3C was a consensus based standards organization which means agreement needs to be reached

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: I don't really care about the XHR side of this (happy to let Anne figure that out), but since WebSockets was mentioned: what's the use case that involves Web Socket? I don't really

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: On Aug 1, 2012, at 22:13 , Glenn Adams wrote: The subject line says Lazy Blob, not Lazy Blob and XHR. For the record, I will object to a LazyBlob solution that is tied solely to XHR, so deal with it now rather than later

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: No it hasn't. If you want a real world use case it is this: my architectural constraints as an author for some particular usage requires that I use WS

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: All WS usage requires a particular (application specific) implementation on the server, does it not? Notwithstanding that fact, such usage will fall

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: Sorry, I was vague. What I mean is what user-facing problem is it that we're trying to solve? see DAR's initial message in this thread; bringing WS into scope doesn't change

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I am not proposing a particular browser supported semantic for a specific implementation on the server. I have suggested, by way of example, two

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: I was referring to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0264.html While that message does not specifically refer to a full-duplex comm path, it states

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: Are you asking for use cases for a remote/lazy blob in general? i.e., as would apply to the proposed XHR usage and any other underlying supported data source? or are you asking about

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-06 Thread Glenn Adams
Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: Are you asking for use cases for a remote/lazy blob in general? i.e., as would apply to the proposed XHR usage and any other underlying supported data

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-06 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: I did share a couple of use cases in my response to Ian: I will let Robin and Jungkee reply to the more general use case requirements. As far as WS is concerned, I don't see any

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-06 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I'll leave the translation of IM protocol to user facing use case as homework for the reader. It is trivial. My intent is to show a use case where one

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-06 Thread Glenn Adams
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Florian Bösch pya...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: The same reason that a remote blob would be useful with XHR. Since you're steadfastly refusing to detail your use case, that'll just mean none to me. I

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-07 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Jungkee Song jungkee.s...@samsung.comwrote: - URLObject represents a resource that can be fetched, FileReader'd, createObjectURL'd, and cloned, but without any knowledge of the contents (no size attribute, no type attribute) and no slice() as URLObjects may

Re: Lazy Blob

2012-08-07 Thread Glenn Adams
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I would suggest using a different name than URLObject. I think that name will cause a lot of head scratching. No disagreement there; that was just

Re: [XHR] Setting the User-Agent header

2012-09-05 Thread Glenn Adams
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote: The current draft of XHR2 doesn't allow clients to set the UA header. Presumably, by clients you mean client-side script, and not the [client] implementation of the UA. That's unfortunate, because part of the intent of

Re: [admin] Call for Editor for DOM4 REC track spec

2012-09-27 Thread Glenn Adams
It is worth noting that this is a critical path blocker for publishing HTML5 as a REC. On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: Hi All, The current Editors of the DOM4 spec are not interested in moving that spec toward Recommendation (in the context of

Re: Call for Consensus: CORS to Candidate Recommendation

2012-11-16 Thread Glenn Adams
Before going to CR, I believe the [HTML] entry in the references section needs to be changed to reference an appropriate W3C specification. A present, it reference a non-W3C document. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.comwrote: On 11/15/12 5:31 PM, ext Hill, Brad

Re: Call for Consensus: CORS to Candidate Recommendation

2012-11-16 Thread Glenn Adams
Cox will file an FO (as a W3C member) if it is not fixed. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote: I object to making such a change. On 11/16/2012 02:32 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: Before going to CR, I believe the [HTML] entry in the references section needs

Re: [admin] Publication Rules [Was Re: Call for Consensus: CORS to Candidate Recommendation]

2012-11-16 Thread Glenn Adams
AM, ext Ms2ger wrote: I object to making such a change. On 11/16/2012 02:32 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: Before going to CR, I believe the [HTML] entry in the references section needs to be changed to reference an appropriate W3C specification. A present, it reference a non-W3C document.

  1   2   >