Hi Silvia,
Back in may last year I brought [1] up the fact that there are two use
cases for temporal media fragments:
1. Skipping to a particular point in a longer resource, such as
wanting to start a video at a particular point while still allowing
seeking in the entire resource. This is current
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 6/21/10 9:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Olli Pettay
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I wonder why a element should have .text which
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wonder why a element should have .text which
> is basically just the same thing as
> .textContent.
>
> I'd prefer removing .text.
It's actually worse, see
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/html/content/src/n
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> 18.06.2010, в 11:01, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
>
>> The fact that it's compatible with the web is definitely important,
>> though are you really worried that serializing as
>> isn't compatible
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> My reading of HTML5 is that boolean content attributes with no valu
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> 18.06.2010, в 10:25, Jonas Sicking написал(а):
>
>> Serializing boolean attributes as seems
>> like a very bad idea since that means that you're changing the value
>> as you serialize. I.e. if you
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> My reading of HTML5 is that boolean content attributes with no value are
> serialized as e.g. . That's not what shipping versions
> of Firefox or IE do, and this markup is invalid per HTML 4, which is a
> concern for some people.
>
>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> Jonas suggested I fwd these comments to the list.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Garrett Smith
> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:04:16 -0700
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] Don't throw for HTMLInputElement.fi
Hi All,
Currently HTMLInputElement.files throws if accessed when type !=
"file". I think it would be better to return null or an empty list. We
generally try to avoid throwing in general, and in particular things
like HTMLInputElement.checked doesn't throw even if the value doesn't
apply. So for c
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Ola P. Kleiven wrote:
>>>
>>> The following sites have workarounds in Opera's browser.js to allow form
>>> submit:
>>>
>>> airgreenland.com (using required on hid
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:16 PM, TAMURA, Kent wrote:
>>
>> There are some objections against omitting invisible controls from form
>> validation. However, it is a real issue with existing sites and users can't
>> submit such forms at all t
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:07 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> Section 6.5.9 "History Traversal" defines popstate and hashchange events
> that are fired on the Window object. It specifies that these events *must*
> bubble. Where should they bubble to? What does it mean to bubble up from a
> Window?
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 5/11/10 11:43 AM, J Ross Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> Looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-FileAPI-20091117/#dfn-file
>
> Note, discussion about FileAPI should happen in WebApps WG mailing list.
>
>
>>
>> There doesn't appear to be anyway of retr
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> Use cases:
>> 1) A screen reader that sees a form with a type=username and a
>> password field. The screen reader could just ask "Log in to this site?
>> [y/n]?". No further context would b
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> But maybe you are right. The html5 spec is already blown up with stuff
>> nobody will ever use (keygen?) enough.
>
> Amusingly enough, keygen is something I use once a year or so (when my user
> certificate expires), and something that MIT s
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:44 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2010-04-30 13:43 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
>> On Friday 2010-04-30 13:05 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:12 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>> > > For a long time, Gecko has implemented the behavior that
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:03 AM, John Gregg wrote:
>>> Also, I do believe the ability to upload a whole directory is important for
>>> some good use-cases, e.g. upload a directory of photos to a photo site while
>>> maintaing directory structure.
>>
>> I can't really say that I can think of any v
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Mounir Lamouri
> wrote:
>> To better fulfill this need, I think we should add two rules for
>> the autofocus attribute behavior: - only the first element with
>> the autofocus attribute specified sho
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I can't think of an application where you'll have to deal with that
> anyway.
This should say "where you *wouldn't* have to deal with that anyway".
/ Jonas
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, John Gregg wrote:
>> > The use case is not about choosing a directory for some browser
>> > functionality, it is
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, John Gregg wrote:
> The use case is not about choosing a directory for some browser
> functionality, it is really about choosing a directory that you want
> to upload to a web page, such as a collection of photo albums.
>
> -John
>
> From Ian Fette's original emai
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 04:04:57 +0900, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> This would require changes to both HTML and to CORS, but not too bad.
>> And the result is significantly better as it doesn't require the user
>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>> For what it's worth, we consider enablePrivilege to be a horrible
>> solution for basically any involved party (browser developer, user,
>> and website author), and we're in the process of removing it. So
>> saying that anything is like
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 4/20/10 7:18 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>>
>>> / Proposed method:
>
> />>/ CanvasRenderingContext2D
> />/> resetOriginClean
> />/> throws SECURITY_ERR exception
> />>/
> />/> When resetOriginClean is executed, an implementation shal
I still don't understand the use case.
In all cases I can think of where applications allow me to pick a
folder (as opposed to a file), it's always been about choosing a
location to save files. For example choosing where to put the browsers
cache, or which should be the default download directory.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Kit Grose wrote:
> On 16/04/2010, at 9:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> While we could deploy a bunch of heuristics, it seems much simpler to
>> just say that it is the *first* element with autofocus that should
>> receive focus. I can&#x
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Mounir Lamouri
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the moment, the autofocus attribute specification [1] is quite
> permissive: only one element should have the autofocus enabled in the
> document but each time an element with autofocus is inserted into the
> document, the UA shou
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>>> wrote:
>>>
>&
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiff
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>> wrote:
Understood. But what is actually the c
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Eric Carlson wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> Will implementations want to do the rendering of the subtitles off the
>> main thread? I believe many browsers are, or are planning to, render
>> the ac
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:47:33 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
&g
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> wrote:
>> f>> Is it expected that all of TTML will be required? The proposal suggests
>>>&
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
f>> Is it expected that all of TTML will be required? The proposal suggests
>> 'starting with the simplest profile', being the transformation profile. Does
>> this mean only the transformation profile is needed to provide subtitle
>> features
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:43:57 +0300, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/31/10 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> I don't think this is enough of a
>> problem to kill the feature though.
>
> I think this is a good feature to try and integrate into existing APIs if
> it's possible to do so cleanly. I don't think it's worth creating yet
> another persisten
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> >> > In regards to data expiration, part of ensuring the security of data
>> >>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > In regards to data expiration, part of ensuring the security of data is
>> > knowing how long it will be stored on disk. If I let someone borrow my
>> > computer to check their email, and the email client happens to save some
>> > data onto
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Well you currently can do this by using the onbeforeprint and onafterprint
>> hooks, though that's not exactly pretty. Hopefully it will also be
>> possible with media-specific CSS, thoug
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:00:04 -0700, Bruce Lawson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:28:50 -, Futomi Hatano wrote:
>>>
>>> Because such controls are ignored when the form is submitted.
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/forms.html#for
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/31/10 6:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> I would expect that send() is allowed to start streaming data over the
>> network as soon as it can, but only update bufferedAmount from the
>> event loop.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
> How does the GC-initiated close() event work in Firefox, in the case of a
> fire-and-forget worker?
> For example:
> foo.html:
>
> new Worker("forget.js");
>
> forget.js:
> self.setInterval(function() { ...do something...}, 1000);
> In this ca
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:03 AM, ben turner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When implementing the close() function for Firefox we chose to set the
> closing flag and clear pending events only. As the worker script is
> calling close() on itself we figured that the worker should retain
> maximum functionality un
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:44:57 +0300, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:22:07 +0300, Jonas Sicking
>>> wrote:
>>&
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/31/10 2:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> I would have expected bufferedAmount to only change as a result of an
>> event being posted to the main event loop. We generally try to avoid
>> "racy" var
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:38:21 +0300, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/30/10 10:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> M
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:22:07 +0300, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:19:33 +0300, Jonas Sicking
>>> wrote:
>>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/30/10 10:22 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Making it implementation dependent is likely to lead to website
>> incompatibilities. Such as:
>>
>> ws = new WebSocket(...);
>> ws.onopen = functio
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree that people are less likely to depend on exceptions. The
>> > problem is feature detection so that you can use the new feature
>> > (sending DO
The spec says
"When a form-associated element has a form attribute and the ID of any
of the form elements in the Document changes, then the user agent must
reset the form owner of that form-associated element."
However it does not seem to reset the form owner if a form element
with an ID is added
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Lastly, we really should not be creating new APIs that are synchronous that
> involve multiple top level windows (like LocalStorage and this API you're
> proposing). It makes it very difficult to achieve isolation and parallelism
> between m
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Niklas Beischer wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:19:33 +0300, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>
>>>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >
>> > We could throw an exception, but that would make migrating from this
>> > not being supported to this being supported later a lot harder (you'd
>> &
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> We (Opera) would prefer this too. I.e. to not impose details of the
>> protocol on the API.
>
> If we're exposing nothing from the protocol, does that mean we shouldn't
> be exposing that the
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, ben turner wrote:
>>
>> I'm implementing the structured clone algorithm and this part bothers me
>> a little bit:
>>
>> - If input is a host object (e.g. a DOM node)
>> Return the null value.
>>
>> Seems like this has the potential to confuse web programmers somewhat.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> "Jonas Sicking" wrote:
>> 2010/3/17 Ian Hickson :
>> > It's not a bad idea... Unfortunately data-* is already being used
>> quite a
>> > lot and has been widely advertised, so we have to b
2010/3/17 Ian Hickson :
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Kornel LesiÅ~Dski wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if data-* attributes should be renamed to priv-* to make
>> it clearer that it's page's _private_ data.
>>
>> "data-" is such a nice generic prefix that I'm afraid sooner or later
>> someone will start basin
>> I agree that the number of steps is not important for responsiveness
>> or performance (though it is for complexity). However several of those
>> steps seemed to involved non-trivial amount of CPU usage, that was the
>> concern expressed in my initial mail.
>>
>> At the very least I think we hav
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> There is a use case, which I suspect is quite common, for using
>> to manipulate files on the users file system. For example
>> when creating a photo uploade
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > Oh, another thing to keep in mind is that if/when we add fromBlob to
> > the main-thread canvas, it has to be asynchronous in order to avoid
> > main thr
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM, David Levin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>> >
>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM, David Levin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I'm not saying that the proposed API is bad. It just doesn't seem to
>> solve the (seemingly most commonly requested) use case of
>> rotating/scaling im
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM, David Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> What is the use case for this? It seems like in most cases you'll want
>> to display something on screen to the user, and so the difference
>>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Diogo Resende
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > No. pushCookies would be a way of pushing cookies to the
>> > current js and
>> > then you could call getCookie several times without defining a
>> >
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 20
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> - Raytracing a complex
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> - Raytracing a complex scene at high resolution.
>> - Drawing a highly zoomed in high resolution portion of the Mandelbrot set.
>>
>> To be fair th
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> - Raytracing a complex scene at high resolution.
> - Drawing a highly zoomed in high resolution portion of the Mandelbrot set.
>
> To be fair though, you could compute the pixels for those with just math,
> there is no need to have a grap
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't
> have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated
> set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that
> isn't as terrible:
>
> https://docs.googl
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jose Fandos wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tim Hutt wrote:
>>
>> On 23 February 2010 18:12, Jose Fandos wrote:
>> >> 2) A multipart response with the files as parts, each part having
>> >> "Content-Disposition: attachment".
>> >
>> > as far as I kn
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/23/10 1:12 PM, Jose Fandos wrote:
>>
>> 2) A multipart response with the files as parts, each part having
>> "Content-Disposition: attachment".
>>
>>
>> as far as I know, and I could be wrong, this would suffer from what I
>> des
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Jonas Sicking
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>&g
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM, David Levin wrote:
>> > I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about
>> > hav
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:36 PM, David Levin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM, David Levin wrote:
>> > I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about
>> &g
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM, David Levin wrote:
> I've talked with some other folks on WebKit (Maciej and Oliver) about having
> a canvas that is available to workers. They suggested some nice
> modifications to make it an offscreen canvas, which may be used in the
> Document or in a Worker.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> toDataURL() was named that way for consistency with toString(), which
>> seems a closer analogue here than getElementById() and friends.
>
>
> But you're not really converting th
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:15:25 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> So I suggest we add a method like
>>
>> interface HTMLFormElement : HTMLElement {
>> ...
>> FormData getFormData();
>>
The FormData object [1] is a great way to allow multipart/form-data
encoded content to be submitted using XMLHttpRequest. It would be
great if it was possible to get a FormData object representing the
data contained in a . This in order to allow normal HTML forms
being used, but using XMLHttpReques
Hi everyone,
I'm currently going through our form submission code, and figured I
should validate this against what the HTML5 spec says. Unfortunately
it seems like processing form submissions is an area where servers are
very fragile. Even minor tweaks seems to break servers, both in the
past and
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Stef Epardaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:48:04AM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> If you have the FormData object [1], then why is it simpler to use
>> submission?
>>
>> [1]
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpReq
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Stef Epardaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:47:04AM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> This is something I've been thinking about too.
>>
>> First of all, what is the use case? Once we have the FormData object,
>> you will be able
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Stef Epardaud wrote:
> Now that I think about it, is it possible to replace a regular form's
> file input list (the list of File objects selected from an input of type
> "file" with multiple files enabled) with "processed" files? Like data
> coming out of a canvas,
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Stef Epardaud wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am trying to write a client-side application in
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Stef Epardaud wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to write a client-side application in HTML5 that resizes
> images before uploading them to the server. I saw several demos that did
> this resizing using canvas and img, but I have only seen how to get a
> data URL out
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Brian Kuhn wrote:
> FWIW, loading scripts asynchronously with the "Script DOM Element" approach
> does not block window.onload in IE. In Chrome and Safari, the downloading
> blocks, but execution doesn't. In Firefox and Opera, downloading and
> execution blocks.
m to."
>
>
>
> From: whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org
> [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Brian Kuhn
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 8:03 AM
> To: Jonas Sicking
> Cc: Steve Souders; WHAT Working Group
> Subject: Re: [whatwg]
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 4) Disparity with document.createElement("isindex");
> 5) Disparity with XHTML.
For what it's worth, I couldn't really care less about these two.
Making these work isn't a goal to me, people should be using s
instead.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> The relevant use cases that led to this design are:
>> 1. Getting validation of forms without scripting, with the UA doing all
>> the UI work.
>>
>> 2. Getting validation of forms
ast week proposing a POSTONLOAD attribute for scripts.
>
> -Steve
>
> On 2/10/2010 5:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Brian Kuhn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No one has any thoughts on this?
>>> It seems to me that the purpose
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>
>>> The spec lets sites submit forms with PUT or DELETE methods to their
>>> origin server. What happens if the server responds with a 307 redire
2010/2/11 Scott González :
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
> wrote:
>>
>> I commonly see them put to *good* use by editting applications,
>> warning you if you attempt to leave the page without saving. It has
>> saved me from accidentally lost effort just in the past few days in
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Brian Kuhn wrote:
> No one has any thoughts on this?
> It seems to me that the purpose of async scripts is to get out of the way of
> user-visible functionality. Many sites currently attach user-visible
> functionality to window.onload, so it would be great if asyn
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/10/10 2:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> ASYNC can be implemented in most browsers actually.
>
> Yes, I was pretty careful with my use of "in a cross-browser manner"... ;)
However even if Firefox (a
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Steve Souders wrote:
> Two common scenarios where scripts aren't put at the bottom:
> - Having talked to web devs across hundreds of companies it's often the
> case that they control a certain section of the page. Inserting content
> outside of that section req
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/10/10 2:19 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Do browsers fire events for which there are no listeners?
>
> It varies. Gecko, for example, fires image load events not matter what but
> only fires mutation events if there are listeners.
H
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:06:07 +0100, Steve Souders wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose the addition of a POSTONLOAD attribute to the SCRIPT
>&g
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> For example, all the behavior of DEFER and ASYNC can be replicated using
>> JavaScript
>
> That's not the case, actually. The behavior of DEFER (eager load start,
> deferred script execution, not blocking the parser or other scripts while
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:06:07 +0100, Steve Souders wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to propose the addition of a POSTONLOAD attribute to the SCRIPT
>> tag.
>>
>> The behavior would be similar to DEFER, but instead of delaying downloads
>> until aft
501 - 600 of 1065 matches
Mail list logo
