On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Whoa.
I believe that the original renaming of the thread intended to clarify the
DAP's mission and stance on security, but we've devolved again into more
muddied up discussion, so I'd like to take a second stab at
On Nov 19, 2009, at 13:09 , Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Is this practical without the major browsers being part of the DAP WG? (Last
time I checked, there were some absences.)
Well, the absences have been vocal in commenting so far; and others have
indicated intention to join. We can't wait for
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Finally, we can all talk about policy and trust in browsers until we're bluer
in the face than a hypothermic smurf the fact of the matter is that I don't
believe that this is a case where discussion can produce consensus.
...@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Adam Barth
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Robin Berjon
Cc: public-device-a...@w3.org; public-webapps WG
Subject: Re: Trying to summarise (was Re: DAP and security)
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro
On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com
wrote:
Finally, we can all talk about policy and trust in browsers until
we're bluer in the face than a hypothermic smurf the fact of the
matter is that I don't believe that this
to summarise (was Re: DAP and security)
On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com
wrote:
Finally, we can all talk about policy and trust in browsers until
we're bluer in the face than a hypothermic smurf the fact of the
matter
] On
Behalf Of Marcin Hanclik [marcin.hanc...@access-company.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:41 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak; Adam Barth
Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; public-webapps WG
Subject: RE: Trying to summarise (was Re: DAP and security)
Hi Maciej,
Thanks for your review
