On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:07 AM, rektide wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any ability to pass a MessageChannel Port in as an IntentSetting, or
> out in the success handler? Is there any facility to allow multi-part
> communications to an activity? For example, Sony does this in their Local UPnP
> Service
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I'm hoping that browsers in general will be able to converge on the
> encoding databases that they have. Both as far as which encodings are
> supported, and as far as what encoding tables those encodings support.
> Anne's spec is a great fir
On 8/7/2012 12:48 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
When Anne's spec appeared I gutted mine and deferred wherever possible
to his. One consequence of that was getting the other encodings "for
free" as far as the spec writing goes. If we achieve consensus that we
only want to support UTF encodings we can a
Simon emailed me personally to answer my last question about what's next: "We
wait for the editor to process this thread. It might take a while, but
he'll get to it."
Other than that, there haven't been any discussions that I've been privy to.
Sincerely,
James Greene
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 a
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't appear we reached consensus - there was some desire expressed
>> to scope to UTF-8, then perhaps expand to include UTF-16, definite consensus
>> that any encoding supported
Has there been any more discussion outside of this thread?
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM, James Greene wrote:
> Alright... so what's next? I'm assuming this needs further discussion with
> other WHATWG members chiming in. If I can help, please let me know. I'd
> like to see this request thro
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> Not an objection, but where does XHR limit sent data to those encodings?
>> send(FormData) forces UTF-8 (which is even more restrictive);
>> send(Document) seems to allow any encoding *except* for UTF-16 (presumably
>> web compat since that's a
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> It doesn't appear we reached consensus - there was some desire expressed
> to scope to UTF-8, then perhaps expand to include UTF-16, definite
> consensus that any encoding supported should be handled by both encode and
> decode, then comments
Henri Sivonen , 2012-08-05 15:52 +0300:
> While I agree with the sentiment the name of the attribute
> communicates, its length is enough of a problem to probably make it
> fail:
> 1) Like a namespace URL, it's too long to memorize correctly, so it's
> easier for the generator developer to type 'a
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> > I seem to have a recollection that we discussed only allowing encoding
> > to UTF8 and UTF16LE, UTF16BE. This in order to promote these formats
> > as well as stay in sync with othe
Henri Sivonen , 2012-08-05 16:01 +0300:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> > Agreed. I support making having some kind of "trial period" like what you
> > describe, or a year or two or 18 months. If we do that I would prefer that
> > the spec include some kind of note/wa
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I seem to have a recollection that we discussed only allowing encoding
> to UTF8 and UTF16LE, UTF16BE. This in order to promote these formats
> as well as stay in sync with other APIs like XMLHttpRequest.
>
Not an objection, but where does
On 8/7/2012 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
I seem to have a recollection that we discussed only allowing encoding
to UTF8 and UTF16LE, UTF16BE. This in order to promote these formats
as well as stay in sync with other APIs like XMLHttpRequest.
However I currently can't find any restrict
13 matches
Mail list logo
