Re: [whatwg] video preload implementation feedback

2012-06-14 Thread Simon Pieters
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:57:29 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 9 May 2012, Simon Pieters wrote: On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:59:29 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: This is true, but as long as a few big browsers implement e.g.

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for Links to Unrelated Browsing Contexts

2012-06-14 Thread Simon Pieters
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:44:12 +0200, Michal Zalewski lcam...@coredump.cx wrote: Any feedback on this revised approach? My vague concern is that the separation is a bit fuzzy, beyond saying that window.opener will be null... if that's the only guaranteed outcome, then maybe that should be

[whatwg] Undo Manager specs is confusing in the contenteditable section

2012-06-14 Thread Rakesh Chaitanya KN
Hi, The specs for undo managerhttp://dvcs.w3.org/hg/undomanager/raw-file/tip/undomanager.html which is at its early stages is a bit confusing at following locations: *2.2.1 Undo scope and contenteditable* * * *When the contenteditable content attribute is added to an element, the user agent must

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for Links to Unrelated Browsing Contexts

2012-06-14 Thread James Graham
On 06/14/2012 04:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 6/13/12 7:44 PM, Michal Zalewski wrote: The degree of separation between browsing contexts is intuitive in the case of Chrome Except it's not, because Chrome will sometimes put things in the same process when they could have gone in different

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for Links to Unrelated Browsing Contexts

2012-06-14 Thread Charlie Reis
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:04 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote: On 06/14/2012 04:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 6/13/12 7:44 PM, Michal Zalewski wrote: The degree of separation between browsing contexts is intuitive in the case of Chrome Except it's not, because Chrome will

Re: [whatwg] video preload implementation feedback

2012-06-14 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Simon Pieters wrote: It's not more. But it still is. Even though images aren't required to load at all, you still recently changed the way they load to be compatible (http://html5.org/r/7128 ). We should also specify how videos load to be compatible. We can do it now

Re: [whatwg] [Cross-document messaging] Restrictions on targetOrigin

2012-06-14 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, João Eiras wrote: Step 1 of the spec [1] for postMessage says: 1. If the value of the targetOrigin argument is neither a single U+002A ASTERISK character (*), a single U+002F SOLIDUS character (/), nor an absolute URL, then throw a SyntaxError exception and abort the