On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:07:36 +0100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are
> hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the intent that this
> specification replace the
Hi Charles,
I see only non-blocking communication in the draft. This is
probably intentional, but adding the possibility for "blocking
sockets" would provide more flexibility for the developer, and
make some problems easier to solve.
This could be provided in different ways, f ex through a
co
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >
> > Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are
> > hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the intent that this
> > specification replace the WHATWG version?
>
> Hmm. It is intended to be used by a similar aud
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:27:50 +1100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are
> hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the intent that this
> specification replace the WHATWG version?
Hmm. It is intended to be used by a si
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> Thanks to Gorm and the WHATWG, we have
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/network-api/network-api.html
Note that the WHATWG version of this draft is in heavy flux; there are
hundreds of outstanding comments on it. Is the inte
