On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Brady Eidson wrote:
> >
> > There is one aspect to this notion of "Web Applications" that is being
> > explored by multiple vendors but hasn't been explicitly addressed in
> > HTML5 quite yet: the "stand
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Brady Eidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second: "void makeStandalone();"
I think one disadvantage of this approach is that it can only be
called in response to a user action if you want to avoid it being used
to annoy or spam. It's unfortunate to have an API tha
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed. (This isn't unique to this proposal; the original idea of an API
> would be even more vulnerable to this, since scripts could just invoke it
> at any time they please.)
>
Of course, but that can be seen as an advant
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > One possibility for addressing these requirements would be an element
> > that acts as a link, button, or icon, or some such, and which invokes
> > user agent features. S
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One possibility for addressing these requirements would be an element that
> acts as a link, button, or icon, or some such, and which invokes user
> agent features. Something like:
>
>
>
It's an interesting idea. You'd h
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> There is one aspect to this notion of "Web Applications" that is being
> explored by multiple vendors but hasn't been explicitly addressed in
> HTML5 quite yet: the "stand alone web application."
Actually there are a number of features that cater for
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Mike Ter Louw wrote:
>
> Joking aside, should a blocking read/recv call be made available? In
> some cases additional lag may be an acceptable compromise for
> maintaining the JavaScript call stack until a response arrives.
Blocking I/O is a non-starter on the main thread.
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Mike Ter Louw wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Bringing in Apache as a library is a serious cost compared to
WebSocket whose handshake can be implemented in a dozen lines of
perl.
Careful, there are probably someone out there that will take this as
a challenge to i
Ian Hickson wrote:
Bringing in Apache as a library is a serious cost compared to WebSocket
whose handshake can be implemented in a dozen lines of perl.
Careful, there are probably someone out there that will take this as a
challenge to implement Apache in a dozen lines of Perl! :P
Joking as
