On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Linus Upsonli...@google.com wrote:
I don't think there is consensus at Google yet.
I'm not saying that UAs shouldn't provide file-like lifetime semantics for
storage. I'm just saying the user should decide, not the web page.
Linus, are you only considering
Hi all,
In testing various combinations of attributes on textareas, I've found
a couple of inconsistencies and some vagueness in the spec.
1) The wrap=hard attribute appears to be defined such that you get
hard line breaks at the specified character width of the element, but
the semantics of the
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Dirk Prankedpra...@chromium.org wrote:
2) wrap=off does not appear to be a legitimate value, despite being
implemented in all the major browsers. Is this an oversight, or an
intentional
Hi all,
In the course of testing something today, I attempted to create a
window and immediately post a message to it, and was surprised that it
didn't seem to work.
E.g.:
var w = window.open(http://x;);
w.postMessage(hello, world, *);
w never got the message - this seemed to be consistent
it as a signal to know that
it can know begin communicating with the newly opened window.
I haven't tested any of this ;-)
-Darin
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi all,
In the course of testing something today, I attempted to create a
window
Nicholas is almost certainly discussing the case where the service
provider requires any data stored on a customer's computer to be
encrypted, not the provider's own computers. (e.g., this could be a
Yahoo! policy that data stored on Yahoo! users' computers must be
encrypted).
Hence they cannot
Sorry for the delay in replying ...
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Dirk Pranke wrote:
In the course of testing something today, I attempted to create a window
and immediately post a message to it, and was surprised that it didn't
seem
Zakas
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; Dirk Pranke
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposal for secure key-value data stores
Sorry for misunderstanding your original suggestion.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Nicholas Zakas nza...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
I certainly can't argue against a focus on JS
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Eitan Adler eitanadlerl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Use cases:
1) A screen reader that sees a form with a type=username
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/4/10 10:56 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
What I would like to offer is a way to control some amount of the
sign-in/sign-out
experience while improving the security, by at least giving an in-page
way to trigger sign-in / sign
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
This is about the fourth time I've said it here. Can the person in
charge
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2010, rya...@mail.com wrote:
My suggestion for the HTML5 spec is that the video tag should have a
feature that can enable GPU acceleration on a user's graphics card, so
it will take some stress off the CPU.
Do
, even if we have a large legacy problem that
would have to be addressed through other things.
Suggesting that people follow 3106 instead of creating a new input
type (which is I think what you're doing) is certainly one possible
solution here.
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
I think
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
Why would a user ever want anyone to disable their GPU acceleration?
I believe I've heard people say that they might sometimes want this for
power management, i.e. performing the same
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
Why would a user ever want anyone to disable their GPU acceleration?
I
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
Nicholas is almost certainly discussing the case where the service
provider requires any data stored on a customer's computer to be
encrypted, not the provider's own computers. (e.g
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Dirk Pranke wrote:
Nicholas is almost certainly
On a related note, the behavior of onUnload in this situation is quite
unclear. Should onUnload() fire if an iframe is detached from the DOM?
The following test illustrates this, and behaves differently in
webkit, opera, FF, and IE (all of which are different from the spec
:).
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
At least spec tells that if an iframe is detached from the DOM and then
becomes eligible for GC (not hold via JS reference not DOM connection) - it
gets unloaded w/o onunload firing (4.8.2):
On the other hand, if an
Hi E.J.,
I've actually been working with some other people on the Chromium team
for what we were calling a topmost window that could be used for
modal dialogs. After some feedback, it's been suggested that we try to
turn this into a more generic dialog element.
I haven't yet incorporated that
21 matches
Mail list logo
