On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:02:45 +0100, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
If you need an intermediary format while editing, you can just use any
syntax you like and have the editor treat it specially.
If I'd need to
On 01/05/2011 02:29 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Olli Pettay wrote:
may I wonder why on earth any new API, like
link.sizes uses PutForwards?
IMHO, PutForwards should be limited to the
awkward DOM0 APIs like window.location.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Olli Pettay wrote:
It makes
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:58:56 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
Therefore, my thinking is that comments should be removed during parsing
and not be exposed to any layer above it.
CSS does that too. It has not caused problems so far. It does mean editing
tools need a slightly
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
!-- comments -- in particular won't work because -- is already used in
the timing format:
00:00.000 -- 00:01.000
In any case, coming up with a syntax is not a problem, /* comments */ and //
comments like
On 2011-01-05 02:39, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Jens M�ller wrote:
now that device orientation, geolocation, camera etc. have been spec'ed:
Is there any intent to provide an API for pressure sensors?
This might well be the next hip feature in smartphones ...
Oh, and while we are
On 2011-01-05 06:10, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 1/4/11 10:51 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Note that you keep comparing websites to desktop software, but desktop
software typically doesn't change out from under the user (possibly
On 2011-01-05 01:07, Seth Brown wrote:
I couldn't agree more that we should avoid turning this into vista's UAC.
The issue with UAC is not UAC.
UAC (especially the more dilligent one on Vista) merely exposed
programmers and software expecting raised priviledges while they
actually did not
On 2011-01-04 22:59, Seth Brown wrote:
That being said. Granting access to a particular script instead of an
entire site sounds like a reasonable security requirement to me. As
does using a hash to verify that the script you granted permission to
hasn't changed.
-Seth
A hash (any hash in
On 1/5/11 10:07 AM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
there is no longer any excuse not to make use of https for downloading
securely or logging in/registering (forums etc), or using secure web
apps.
Tell that to facebook? They seem to feel there is an excuse for it, and
they definitely have a cert.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
* “visible” : the full-size page content may be at least partially
visible on at least one screen.
* “hidden” : the full-size page content is not visible to the user at all.
I'd even say
* hidden: the full-size page content
This thread led me to realise there were a number of problems in the spec
with the multiple= attribute as applied to type=email, including a poor
definition of how list= applies, a poor definition of how selectedOption
applies, an incoherent expectation that the selection API should apply to
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
I wouldn't. Just because a user trusts some particular entity to know
exactly where they are, doesn't mean they trust their stalker with that
information. I picked geolocation specifically, because that involves an
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not really irrevocable. A MITM only has access to the info as
long as he's conducting the MITM. As soon as the attack ends, the
attacker stops getting info. Moreover, anyone who's intercepting your
Internet
The hash thing wasn't my idea in the first place, and now that you
bring up the point about hashes not guaranteeing sameness it's
probably not wortj implementing.
However, the hash idead wasn't intended to replace other security. It
was merely a way to try to get around the possibility of a site
On 1/5/11 3:54 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
I wouldn't. Just because a user trusts some particular entity to know
exactly where they are, doesn't mean they trust their stalker with that
information. I picked geolocation
15 matches
Mail list logo
