Hi all,
In the last couple of weeks, I've been working with developers of CKEditor,
TinyMCE, and Google Docs to come up with *new API for undo and redo*.
Why? Because* undo and redo are broken on the Web today*. Whenever Web apps
try to add a custom editing operation without using execCommand or
Thank you for your reply, but to me this seems overly complicated. Why do I
need a KeyId?
What about the following proposal:
Phase one: The server knows the user's password and encrypts the file.
Phase two: The encrypted file is stored on the local hard drive using the File
API.
Pase three:
The downside of that sort of API is that you end up storing key
material in the JavaScript heap. There's some question about whether
we should avoid doing that, which is part of the motivation to do the
public key API before the symmetric API.
Your example also raise the question of how to do
I totally agree with you. My code was just an example. I also think it should
be idiot proof.
However, I think the whole API should be loosly coupled. Requiring the client
to initialize a cryptographic function on the server seems to tightly linked. I
think it should be possible to decrypt
- Original Message -
From: Simon Heckmann si...@simonheckmann.de
To: Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com, WHATWG Proposals
whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, David Dahl
dd...@mozilla.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:13:38 AM
Subject: Re: [whatwg]
On 26/07/2011, at 10:44 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Robert O'Callahan posted a good response:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2011/06/permissions_for.html
In short, the better solution isn't to ask for permissions up-front, but
to ask for fewer permissions. The ideal solution is
On 27/07/2011, at 5:30 PM, Mike Hanson wrote:
The challenging use case, and one that we had trouble with when we prototyped
the Contacts API, is for ongoing or persistent access. The best approach we
have right now is to use explicit markup to sandbox the permissions grant
away from
(Ian pointed out this old thread to me that he hadn't yet responded
to, so I'll respond now.)
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@google.com wrote:
Hi, I just realized that in HTML4.01 spec, DTD doesn't seem to allow
nested OL or UL without LI. See
(Responding to some old feedback on editing from before I started work
on it, which Hixie sent me.)
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Nikita Vasilyev m...@elv1s.ru wrote:
The current version of spec
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/editing.html#contenteditable
does
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
Use of deflate-stream is now mandatory in API spec. I think this kind of
requirement is useless. How about leave it up to implementors' decision?
Well we don't want optional features, so it's either in or out.
I think this requirement doesn't
(answering some old feedback on DOM Range that Hixie pointed me to)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Andrew Oakley and...@ado.is-a-geek.net wrote:
I've been trying to implement DOM Range but can't work out how ranges
are supposed to work under mutation.
This should now be more or less fully
On 21 July 2011 20:59, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Tim Down timd...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but it's significantly better than the alternative, which is to
write your own code to search for text that spans nodes.
It shouldn't be *too* hard to
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On 4/28/11, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
All current UAs would understand the link (and most probably present it
to the user). Inline presentation is an optional luxury: the important
thing
Feedback on sections 1 through 3:
- WebKit treats any font-weight above or equal to 600 as bold because
that's what user sees, and boldness is a binary concept in execCommand;
Firefox 5 appears to do the same.
- WebKit compares colors in rgb/rgba format; e.g. red is first parsed as
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
On 12/29/2010 07:41 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I actually think that the customerrormessage attribute that has
been suggested is a
In the last couple of weeks, I've been working with developers of CKEditor,
TinyMCE, and Google Docs to come up with *new API for undo and redo*.
I'd like to take a look at this and be very closely involved in this
specification. About a month ago, I wrote this:
28.07.2011 03:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
A text input field could have a number of error conditions:
Indeed. Therefore it would be essential to be able to set the error
message for _each_ check that a browser is supposed to do on the basis
of HTML markup alone. If this is not possible, it is
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Alex Vincent ajvinc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to take a look at this and be very closely involved in this
specification. About a month ago, I wrote this:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-April/031191.html
Oh, yes. I do remember
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm very reluctant to add such things, because it adds corner cases
that vastly complicate processing and allow tons more room for bugs.
It means every single algorithm related to editing needs to be aware
of the
19 matches
Mail list logo
