This kind of discussion should happen in W3C WebApps WG, using
DOM mailing list (www-...@w3.org).
There as been some discussion about this subject and I hope
there would be a draft spec somewhat soon.
(This all may depend on patent nonsense.)
-Olli
On 2/26/10 12:37 AM, dpenk...@gmail.com
What about something like:
document.pushCookies(function () {
// cookies have been pushed to the js process
var x = document.getCookie(x);
// whatever...
});
This seems similar to Adam's proposed
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Daniel Cheng dch...@google.com wrote:
Several questions about the proposal:
How does DataTransferItems interact with the original DataTransfer object?
I'm assuming changes in one should be reflected in the other. If that's the
case, what should happen if I do
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Dmitry Titov dim...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The reason this is a function rather than a read-only attribute is to
allow the return FormData
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.ptwrote:
What about something like:
document.pushCookies(function () {
// cookies have been pushed to the js process
var x = document.getCookie(x);
//
No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
current js and
then you could call getCookie several times without defining a
callback.
It would be almost like:
document.observe(cookieload, myAppLoad)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.ptwrote:
No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
current js and
then you could call getCookie several times without defining a
callback.
It would be almost
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
Sure, but a better name could help a bit. For example, this produces
a 'shared' object:
document.getElementById(foo)
while this creates a new one:
myFormElement.getFormData()
It might be ok, but it is a bit inconsistent.
Why not:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Diogo Resende drese...@thinkdigital.pt
wrote:
No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
current js and
then you could call getCookie several
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:28:12 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Michael Nordman wrote:
Sure, but a better name could help a bit. For example, this produces
a 'shared' object:
document.getElementById(foo)
while this creates a new one:
10 matches
Mail list logo
