This could lead to a lot of requests being made by the client, just to check
a url. If a page contains 100 links, then 100 HEAD requests need to be made,
and in most cases they will be plain old ordinary links, so no 301
redirects. The browser could do the check when you mouse over the link, that
I don't see the connection with CORS. The browser is free to request
whatever URLs it wants. The results need not be accessible to
content. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Adam
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
a friend of mine just wrote an
... or as unbiased as you're likely to get, anyway, from a top 10
website of very mainstream interest whose direct interest is serving
the readers:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
The
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... or as unbiased as you're likely to get, anyway, from a top 10
website of very mainstream interest whose direct interest is serving
the readers:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm
2009/11/8 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
... or as unbiased as you're likely to get, anyway, from a top 10
website of very mainstream interest whose direct interest is serving
the readers:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, no - readers have *way* outstripped editors since about
2006. It's not even the tech-savvy or web-savvy audience -
Wikipedia is standard fare for people who can't work computers to look
stuff up on.
Granted,
I think that Silvia was implying that a URL shortening service could respond
with
Access-Control-Allow-Origin:*http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/#access-control-allow-origin-response-heaor
some such header to signal to the browser that this domain serves
resources in a cross-origin fashion. This would
Yes, that's the point. Please read the blog post for details. Benno
also discussed the issue of the number of requests made.
BTW: I've taken the public-html list off this thread, since I think
the discussion so far was only by WHATWG members and we want to avoid
too much cross-posting.
Thanks,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that's the point. Please read the blog post for details. Benno
also discussed the issue of the number of requests made.
BTW: I've taken the public-html list off this thread, since I think
the discussion so
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Chris Jones cjo...@mozilla.com wrote:
Rob Ennals wrote:
Missed out the important final qualifier. Here's take 3:
the user agent MUST NOT release the storage mutex between calls to local
storage, except that the user agent MAY release the storage mutex on any
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Adam Barth wha...@adambarth.com wrote:
As I mentioned to Ian at TPAC, one way to make this more predictable
is to release the lock on *every* function call and return. This
provides content enough atomicity to build whatever locks it needs.
Then simple
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:25 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
I don't see the connection with CORS. The browser is free to request
whatever URLs it wants. The results need not be accessible to
content. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
The proposal at the link was for a method to do URL unshortening as a
12 matches
Mail list logo
