Re: [WebIDL] Assigning to constants

2008-06-13 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 13, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: Simon Pieters: Ok, good that it is defined. But is there a good reason why it is this way rather than what I'd expected (same as readonly attributes)? I think authors should be able to rely on constants being, um, constant. No? It

Re: Improving Communication and Expectations

2008-06-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 16, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: Hi, Maciej- You may have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not propose that issues be brought up and solved in a binding manner during a single telcon (though some minor issues may be, in the interest of acting in a suitably-paced

Re: Opting in to cookies - proposal

2008-06-19 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: After reviewing your comments, I am much more inclined to favor Microsoft's proposal on this: rename the relevant headers. I think you argued that this doesn't scale, but I think only two headers have

Re: [Fwd: Offline data synchronization API]

2008-06-21 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
are about transparent, read-write caches that are auto-synchronized using Atom publishing protocol. I hope this makes clear the intent of my original email. Regards, Nikunj Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote: Hi Art, Charles, We have developed

Re: Agenda and logistics...

2008-06-23 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Hi folks, the agenda and logistics page for the meeting will be shortly available to working group members (Sunava, can you please ask your AC rep to ensure that you guys have joined by the time we have the meeting?). I

Re: Worker Threads and Site Security Policy | Two Possible New Items for Standardization

2008-06-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: Doug Schepers, Charles McCathieNevile (Chairs), Members of the WG, On behalf of Mozilla, I'd like to introduce the possibility of two new work items for this group to consider. Neither of these is presented as a fait accompli,

Re: Process Re: Worker Threads and Site Security Policy

2008-06-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: CC trimmed a bit for people I know are in the list without looking. Sadly Microsoft still haven't got around to joining, so it falls on Chris to pass this on until they get to do the legal work. NB: The chairs are actually Art

Re: [access-control] Update

2008-07-09 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:54:17 +0200, Sunava Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I prefer Access-control: * Access-control: URL I suppose it would be slightly shorter, but it's also less clear. I would be in favor of Access-Control or

Re: [selectors-api] What DOM feature Selectors API belongs to?

2008-07-14 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Boris Zbarsky wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:40:44 +0200, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be acceptable if I defined one, but made it optional for implementers to support? Or at least optional for ECMAScript

Re: [D3E] Possible Changes to Mutation Events

2008-07-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Laurens Holst wrote: Hi Doug, Doug Schepers schreef: Sergey Ilinsky wrote (on 7/15/08 6:39 AM): Doug Schepers wrote: 1. DOMNodeRemoved and DOMNodeRemovedFromDocument would be fired after the mutation rather than before 2. DOM operations that perform multiple

Re: [D3E] Possible Changes to Mutation Events

2008-07-17 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:33 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: You could argue that this example is contrived (and it is), but I think it still illustrates the point. The current interleaving of mutations and events is bad for (some) implementations and good for web authors. Your proposed

Re: Proposal for an extension XMLHttpRequest to allow sending files

2008-07-17 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: Is the only difference from the Gears proposal the name of the object (File) and the lack of reading APIs initially? The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension. We are proposing making the File object usable

Re: Proposal for an extension XMLHttpRequest to allow sending files

2008-07-17 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension. We are proposing making the File object usable directly as an XHR body, so that we can all

Re: Proposal for an extension XMLHttpRequest to allow sending files

2008-07-18 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: I have two minor concerns with this proposal, both in the cases where it differs from Gears: 1. Combining

Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC

2008-07-18 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Sunava Dutta wrote: I’m in time pressure to lock down the header names for Beta 2 to integrate XDR with AC. It seems no body has objected to Jonas’s proposal. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0175.html Please let me know if this

Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC

2008-07-18 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Eric Lawrence wrote: The specific concern with redirections is that we know of instances where redirection systems are in use that do not currently support addition of custom response headers, and cannot be trivially updated to add such headers. These

Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC

2008-07-18 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
, whether or not it opts into Access-Control, in the cross-domain case. Regards, Maciej Thanks! Eric Lawrence Program Manager - IE Security Want to view and tamper with HTTP(S) traffic? Try http://www.fiddler2.com From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:07 PM

Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC

2008-07-20 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 20, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote: According to the HTML5 spec space is a valid characted inside URLs. That wasn't intentional -- can you point to where it says that? The HTML5 spec relies on spaces not being

Re: XDomainRequest Integration with AC

2008-07-30 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
mail here seems to be on 7/21. Jonas and I agreed offline that angle brackets are not required for unambiguous parsing. - MAciej -Original Message- From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:32 PM To: Jonas Sicking Cc: Sunava Dutta; [EMAIL

Re: ISSUE-44 (EventsAndWindow): Should DOM3 Events cover the interaction of events and the Window object? [DOM3 Events]

2008-08-08 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 7, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Olli Pettay wrote: Could we actually just say that if document implements DocumentView interface and .defaultView isn't null and implements EventTarget, the event propagates to .defaultView. So in

Re: File Upload Status ?

2008-08-12 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 11, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: The other problem is that setTimeout does not result in async javascript execution it merely delays the synchronous execution of a script. I've just tried to upload a 1.1mb log file from my hard drive and had no issue reading. Using

Re: [whatwg] WebIDL and HTML5

2008-08-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 26, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So let me repeat the question with the grammatical error fixed. Please do excuse any other grammar errors I introduce as English is a second language to me. 3)

Re: [whatwg] WebIDL and HTML5

2008-08-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 26, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: Option (a) is unacceptable for the following reasons: 1) It does not match existing implementations and thus would likely break compatibility with existing content. 2) It violates the DOM Level 3 Core specification, which says: On

Re: [whatwg] WebIDL and HTML5

2008-08-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 26, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: Null is not the empty string. No one claimed that it was. A number of DOM methods are specified as treating them equivalently, however.

Re: [whatwg] WebIDL and HTML5

2008-08-27 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 27, 2008, at 2:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Garrett Smith wrote: Given that, I suggest moving forward: Test, then document those methods as having special behavior. Do this not by a null-value mapping, but by documenting the method's algorithm in simple terms. e.g. if X is not a

Re: Regarding DOM 3 Tests Format

2008-09-18 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: Hey Chaals, What makes you think that your pious and arrogant attitude makes you a moderator? You have no right to dictate what I can say. The fact that Chaals is a co-Chair of the Web Applications working group makes him a moderator of

Comments on some Web IDL extended attribute names

2008-10-02 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
I think [NativeObject] should be renamed to [Callback]. It is meant to be used for callback objects that have a single designated callback method, right? I think [Variadic] should be renamed [Optional]. A function may be variadic, but a parameter is optional, and this goes on the

Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-02 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
Hello Web Apps WG, A number of WebKit developers (including from the Chrome team and the Safari team) have been discussing ideas for a new and improved timer API. We would like to serve the following use cases which we feel are not well served by the de facto standard (and now HTML5

Re: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 3, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: // should be implemented by Window objects interface WindowTimer { Timer startTimer(in double delayInSeconds, in boolean repeating, in TimerHandler handler); } How about a Timer constructor function instead? Pros: * Fits the

Re: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 3, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:43:55 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A number of WebKit developers (including from the Chrome team and the Safari team) have been discussing ideas for a new and improved timer API

Re: [webkit-dev] Proposed Timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 3, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: Hi Chris. I really like the idea of a Timer object. It would allow you to separate creation from starting, allows you to pause and add other API's to the interface. Can the constructor be used to simplify the creation: var t = new

Re: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
is needed here. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:44 PM To: public-webapps@w3.org Group WG Subject: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API Hello Web Apps WG, A number

Re: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: Hi Maciej, Thanks for raising this. It's a good addition to the web platform. I'm definitely +1 to the idea. 2008/10/2 Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: // should be implemented by Window objects interface WindowTimer { Timer

Re: Proposal: High resolution (and otherwise improved) timer API

2008-10-03 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A number of WebKit developers (including from the Chrome team and the Safari team) have been discussing ideas for a new and improved timer API. We would like

Re: [XHR2] Drop ByteArray?

2008-10-06 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: I'm considering dropping ByteArray support. That is, removing support for it from send() and removing responseBody for now. At this point it's not really clear what the future of ByteArray is and it seems nobody is driving that work

Re: FileUpload Spec | Editor's Draft | Re: Call for Consensus: a new WD of the File Upload spec

2008-10-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: Maciej, My first question would be: Why did you ignore Apple's proposal to start with a minimal common interface (which most people seemed to like) and instead wrote a draft

Re: FileUpload Spec | Editor's Draft | Re: Call for Consensus: a new WD of the File Upload spec

2008-10-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Why did you ignore Apple's proposal to start with a minimal common interface (which most people seemed to like) and instead wrote a draft that is the union of all things in Robin's original spec, all things that Mozilla happened to

Re: FileUpload Spec | Editor's Draft | Re: Call for Consensus: a new WD of the File Upload spec

2008-10-17 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: But it does require an unforgeable user click to bring it up, so you can't spam it or make it pop up

Re: FileUpload Spec | Editor's Draft | Re: Call for Consensus: a new WD of the File Upload spec

2008-10-23 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: All, Maceij wrote: [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008OctDec/0010.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0047.html [3]

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors Last Call

2008-10-31 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
I support the publication as Last Call. On Oct 31, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Hi, Lachy thinks the latest editor's draft[1] is ready for Last Call, after responding to all the comments from last time (and removing the NSResolver). The disposition of comments[2]

Re: [access-control] Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and ascii-origin in IE8

2009-01-14 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Bil Corry wrote: Adrian Bateman wrote on 1/14/2009 3:18 PM: I actually don't think that the generic name is a problem as long as the CSRF solution uses a different name for a different meaning. The value really is an Origin and could potentially be used for

Re: [access-control] Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and ascii-origin in IE8

2009-01-14 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jan 14, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Bil Corry wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 1/14/2009 6:14 PM: Why does the CSRF defense header need to change on redirect? Because to the site on the far end, it would appear the request came from somewhere it didn't, effectively hiding the real source

Re: [access-control] Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and ascii-origin in IE8

2009-01-15 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Bil Corry wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 1/15/2009 12:47 AM: So one thing to keep in mind is that any POST-based form would not be vulnerable to this kind of attack unless the victim site actually submits a form to an untrusted site. There is no way for a GET

Re: [access-control] Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and ascii-origin in IE8

2009-01-15 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
Hixie said the position I expressed was a little unclear, so I'd like to clarify briefly: 1) FACT: The HTML5 version of the CSRF-defense header (currently called 'XXX-Origin' as a temporary measure) is specified not to be sent for GET requests. 1.a) FACT: As a result, it does not

Re: [access-control] Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and ascii-origin in IE8

2009-01-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Bil Corry wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote on 1/15/2009 10:40 PM: CONCLUSION: We should use a single Origin header with the name and semantics of the Access-Control Origin header for both its Access-Control purpose and for redirect defense. The differences

Re: Seeking implementation status of XBL2

2009-02-10 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
We're interested in implementing XBL2 in WebKit as well, though I can't give a specific timetable. On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: On Feb 10, 2009, at 15:27 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: Robin Berjon wrote: I don't know if there is precedent in counting JS-based

Re: Selectors API

2009-03-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Mar 23, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Mar/0066.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Apr/0009.html I read those. That was long after this was initially discussed though. And also

Re: Selectors API

2009-03-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Mar 23, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Mar 23, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Mar/0066.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Apr/0009.html I read those

Re: Web Storage SQL

2009-04-09 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Giovanni Campagna wrote: So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)? I mean something like openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize)

Re: Web Storage SQL

2009-04-10 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: I agree that no such thing as standard SQL (or rather the fact that implementations all have extensions and divergences from the spec) is a problem. But I am not sure inventing a brand new query language

EventSource editorial issues

2009-05-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
Section 8 says: It is better to include a unique identifier in the document when it is served and then pass that identifier as part of the URL in the src attribute of the eventsource element. But there is no eventsource element or src attribute defined by this specification. Section

Re: [selectors-api] Transitioning to CR

2009-06-20 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: That's true. THe question is whether a REC makes it easier to get a new interoperable implementation. And it's open, as far as I can see. Assuming we have implementation of everything, twice, and that for everything we have at

Re: [cors] TAG request concerning CORS Next Step(s)

2009-06-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 24, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: Members of the Web Apps WG, Below is an email from Henry Thompson (forwarded with his permission), on behalf of the TAG [1], re the CORS spec [2]. Two things: 1. Please respond to at least this part of Henry's mail: [[ It appeared to us

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: In any case, adding a new feature to a spec whose future is uncertain isn't a good idea because it means that the new feature's progress is tied to the uncertain future of the rest of the spec. Thus, my recommendation to Nikunj would be to

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued, just like the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR, CORS, Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't believe it really

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote: On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: I have proposed to Mozilla a solution that provides access to an organized key-value database such as that

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus and strong

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be used by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though it is open source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It seems unlikely that

Re: Berkeley DB license (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

2009-06-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's

Re: Berkeley DB license (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

2009-06-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing of Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing issues. First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the erstwhile SleepyCat license

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three deliverables. We already have a broad charter and

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-06-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley DB to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only interested in understanding how to do look up by one or more of them, please skip to slide 51. If this

Re: An import statement for Web IDL

2009-06-29 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 28, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: The OMG-ish IDL fragments published for W3C specs use C preprocessor- like directives to include other IDL fragments, so that names resolve correctly. For example, http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/idl/events.idl has: [...]

Re: An import statement for Web IDL

2009-06-30 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:26 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: It would be nice if we could find a way to make things more rigorous with a mechanism that's convenient to both spec writers and browser developers. On possibility: we could consistently use

Re: Web IDL syntax

2009-06-30 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: Maciej Stachowiak: WebKit doesn't have the same technical constraints as Mozilla, however this change doesn't really seem helpful and it would be annoying to have to replace all instances of DOMString in our existing IDL. find

Re: [WebIDL] Callback, PropertyOnly, NoInterfaceObject

2009-07-01 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Marcin Hanclik wrote: What about [ESNativeObject]? I don't think the property should be ES-specific. It would probably have effects for other language bindings too. I'm also not sure this clarifies the use of Native. Regards, Maciej

Re: An import statement for Web IDL

2009-07-02 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 2, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Cameron McCormack wrote: I don’t know how important it is to keep the HTML interfaces in the org.w3c.dom.html package, but it definitely seems important to keep DOM Core and Events interfaces in org.w3c.dom and

Re: Points of order on this WG

2009-07-04 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:06:21 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and programmable http cache to the WG's

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

2009-07-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Adam Barth wrote: When a browser creates an instance of a DOM object defined by an WebIDL interface, the browser must choose where to connect it's prototype chain. For example, consider this case (where frames[0] is a same-origin child frame): var doc =

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

2009-07-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I definitely agree you definitely don't want the inner windows prototype values if it's a cross-origin window. What you should get is less clear to me. If you should get the outer windows prototype or some sort of blank prototype. Personally

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

2009-07-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: I definitely agree you definitely don't want the inner windows prototype values if it's a cross-origin window. What you should get is less clear

Re: WebIDL and prototype chains

2009-07-16 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 16, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: HTML5 just says that new History, Location, etc, objects are created for each (inner) Window object. Is this not accurate? What do browsers do? Creating new ones on navigation is indeed correct

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

2009-07-22 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: I don't think the problem is that we couldn't build yet another cache that is similar but different to the AppCache that others are already shipping so I don't think a reference implementation is the solution. I think the problem is

Re: DataCache API - editor's draft available

2009-07-22 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote: While it might not be the perfect solution (we know the web far from ideal and is a lot of compromise), this type of proposal would be a lot more compelling to me if I could say This is

Re: [WebDatabase] Database interface (vs. DatabaseSync interface)

2009-07-27 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: On Jul 25, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: But using workers is a large burden: they are completely separate JavaScript environments that share nothing with the main web page. Having to use that for simpler use cases would be very

Re: [WebDatabase] Database interface (vs. DatabaseSync interface)

2009-07-27 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: And mine did get awkward, very quickly. I found it really hard to keep myself sane through the development of asynchronous code that executes transactionally and involves multiple sql statements. My argument is that the program logic

Re: Web IDL syntax

2009-08-07 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: Cameron McCormack: I’ll think about it. :-) HTMLAppletElement can always have readonly attribute DOMString _object; to avoid conflicting with the reserved word. Ian Hickson: It's many years too late for that. The underscore is just

Re: CfC: publish new WDs of XHR and XHR2; deadline 18 August

2009-08-13 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish new WDs of the XHR and XHR2 specs. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is August 18.

Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September

2009-09-01 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Web Database spec: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's functionality was included in the

Re: [selectors-api] Summary of Feature Requests for v2

2009-09-23 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: *Scoped Queries* http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860 This has been discussed extensively in the past. Basically, the idea is that the selector

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: At the upcoming TPAC, there is an opportunity for F2F coordination between these two groups, and the time slot between 10 O'Clock and Noon on Friday has been suggested for this. To help prime the pump, here are four topics suggested by ECMA

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
-Level-2-Core/ -- Yehuda On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: It seems like this is a Web IDL issue. I don't see any reason for Web IDL to move to ECMA. It is a nominally language-independent

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
to solve the problem? Probably. Do you have a specific proposal? Regards, Maciej -- Yehuda On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: Maybe this would be a good opportunity to revisit the utility of WebIDL

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: Probably the best thing to do is to provide detailed technical review of Web IDL via the W3C process. Expertise on both sides

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
think some of the complexity of the Web IDL spec can probably be removed without losing anything important - I think it offers some constructs that are not used by any spec relying on it. - Maciej -- Yehuda On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: Any TC39 members whose employers can't join could perhaps become Invited Experts to the W3C Web Applications Working Group, if that facilitates review. Unfortunately, no. See #2 and #3

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: Any TC39 members whose employers can't join could perhaps become Invited Experts to the W3C Web Applications Working

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-24 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: That sounds reasonable. There are really two issues. One is that there are parts of WebIDL that are unused. Another is that the parts of the spec themselves are fairly arcane and very implementor- specific. Consider: interface UndoManager {

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 25, 2009, at 2:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: That sounds reasonable. There are really two issues. One is that there are parts of WebIDL that are unused. Another is that the parts of the spec themselves are fairly

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 25, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: To clarify, AFAIK, no one on the EcmaScript committee is proposing that WebIDL itself be moved to ECMA, but rather the WebIDL-EcmaScript language binding. The design of Web IDL itself is highly informed by the ECMAScript language binding -

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-25 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Krzysztof Maczyński wrote: Do we need a WindowProxy in the core language? I'm not sure, but if not then there has to be some other way of specifying how |this| in global code binds to the outer window rather than the inner (Ecma global). We didn't try to make

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:32 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: We seem to agree, perhaps vehemently :-/. One last time, for the record: it is a bug in ES specs that you can't follow th Sorry, rogue cut before send. it's a bug in ES specs that you

Re: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 12:20 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: I think there are two possible perspectives on what constitutes magnify[ing] the problem or widening the gap A) Any new kind of requirement for implementations of object interfaces that can't be implemented

Re: WebIDL

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:33 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: WebIDL, taken as a whole, make it very difficult for someone new to the spec(s) to understand what's going on. I started, like a reasonable person, by looking at the Window object. When looking at it, I encountered a number of somewhat confusing

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: No we are not. This is exactly the heart of our concern. The WebIDL ECMAScript binding is not simply a mapping of IDL interface onto standard language features (such as is done for the Java binding). While it has some of that it also

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com] On Sep 26, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: ... Essentially, the semantics of browser ECMAScript has been arbitrarily split into two independently maintained standards

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: Cameron McCormack: Indeed, much of the custom [[Get]] etc. functionality can be turned into ES5 meta-object stuff. A pertinent question is then: should we change Web IDL to specify an ES5 binding (and not ES3) at this point, given

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: The specific problem is that host objects cannot necessarily match the semantics of ES5, and for that reason the interaction of host objects with the ES5 semantics is unclear. I think mapping Web IDL behavior to ES5 property descriptors

Re: WebIDL

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: Yehuda Katz: Ha. Maybe it would be worth putting a note in HTML5. [Replaceable] is a quirk of history. Do not over-attend to it. Ian Hickson: If we start calling out all the quirks of history in HTML5, we'd probably end up doubling

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

2009-09-26 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Sep 26, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: -Original Message- From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com] I expect there are relatiively few such capabilities, and little interest in depending on new ones, and therefore we do not really have a general ongoing

  1   2   3   4   >