[whatwg] Question re: WSS

Hi All Since WebSockets seem to be talked about recently. I've have a couple of questions re: the http websocket implementation and https ie wss 1. Will wss be able to perform a normal TLS handshake over wss? 2. Will it be able to send an X.509 certificate down the wire? 3. Is it likely that

Re: [whatwg] Web-sockets + Web-workers to produce a P2P website or application

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Andrew de Andrade and...@deandrade.com.brwrote: I have an idea for a possible use case that as far as I can tell from previous discussions on this list has not been considered or at least not in the form I present below. I have a friend whose company produces

Re: [whatwg] Web Notifications

On 20 June 2012 10:58, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: Hi, The Web Notifications WG is planning to move Web Notifications to W3C Last Call meaning we don't intend to change it. But we might have missed something and would therefore appreciate your review of

Re: [whatwg] Administrivia: Update on the relationship between the WHATWG HTML living standard and the W3C HTML5 specification

On 20 July 2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Hixie, I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being; The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the canonical description of HTML and related technologies The claim that HTML the living standard is

Re: [whatwg] Administrivia: Update on the relationship between the WHATWG HTML living standard and the W3C HTML5 specification

On 25 July 2012 18:12, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: To reiterate the statement I made in the original post on this thread: If you have any questions, I encourage you to e-mail me privately or ask on the IRC channel (#whatwg on Freenode); process-related discussion is discouraged on this

Re: [whatwg] Shared storage

On 15 February 2014 03:04, Brett Zamir bret...@yahoo.com wrote: *The opportunity and current obstacles* The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the

Re: [whatwg] Shared storage

On 28 October 2014 21:32, Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com writes: On 15 February 2014 03:04, Brett Zamir bret...@yahoo.com wrote: *The opportunity and current obstacles* The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On 3 September 2015 at 20:21, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote: > > > > > > The spec just reflects implementations. The majority of > > > implementations of (by usage) have said they want to drop it, > > > > There was a lot of pushback on

Re: [whatwg] deprecating

On 3 September 2015 at 21:27, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > > > The post foolip pointed to points out that is actually rather > > > insecure (e.g. using MD5). One could argue that _keeping_ is > >

Re: [whatwg] possible new parameters to video.play() ?

On 18 September 2016 at 14:44, Simon Pieters <sim...@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 01:21:27 +0200, Melvin Carvalho < > melvincarva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Apologies if this has come up before, but I was wondering if it would be >> possible to add

[whatwg] possible new parameters to video.play() ?

Apologies if this has come up before, but I was wondering if it would be possible to add simple parameters to the play() function. They would be play(start, end) Where start and end are the times in seconds. I know you can do video.currentTime = start ; video.play() But there's no real easy

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

On 9 April 2017 at 11:51, David Kendal wrote: > Moin, > > Over the last few years there has been a gradual downgrading of support > in browsers for running pages from the file: protocol. Most browsers now > have restrictions on the ability of JavaScript in such pages to access >

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

On 9 April 2017 at 11:51, David Kendal wrote: > Moin, > > Over the last few years there has been a gradual downgrading of support > in browsers for running pages from the file: protocol. Most browsers now > have restrictions on the ability of JavaScript in such pages to access >

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

On 11 April 2017 at 18:01, Domenic Denicola wrote: > From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of > Patrick Dark > > > I can't see this being addressed. The only good reason to distribute an > application this way is because you want it to be confidential

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 21 July 2017 at 23:21, Michael A. Peters wrote: > I am (finally) starting to implement JSON-LD on a site, it generates a lot > of data that is useless to the non-bot typical user. > > I'd prefer to only stick it in the head when the client is a crawler that > wants it.

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 26 July 2017 at 15:04, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote: > After reading just a bit more - it seems like JSON-LD and schema.org have > slightly different goals - schema.org suggests conventions for data cues > in > HTML, JSON-LD suggests it for JSON (e.g. API responses for

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 26 July 2017 at 15:43, Mark Kaplun wrote: > Well, in practice, since it is an SEO signal what google does in practice > is more important than any theoretical discussion. > > Not being in any way affiliated with google, my own impression is that > google do not care which