ISSUE-37: [Progress] Use unsigned long long for .loaded and .total
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/
Raised by: Olli Pettay
On product:
Since Progress Events is used also for video, unsigned long long would be
better than unsigned long.
Moving to public-webapps from public-webapi. See original thread here.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/thread.html#msg35
João Eiras wrote:
if (document.querySelector) {
// Supported
} else {
// Not suported
}
Too bad that only works with ecmascript.
Such
Moved from public-webapi to public-webapps. Original issue raised here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/0053.html
(forgot to change the address to public-webapps, resending to correct
list. Sorry for duplicates)
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
* It's not clear which IDL, if
Is there really any demand from implementers of other languages to have a
feature sting defined for hasFeature()? Is there any evidence that people
make use of existing feature strings in their programs, using any
implementation?
You provide a feature, then others use it, not the other way
João Eiras wrote:
Is there really any demand from implementers of other languages to have a
feature sting defined for hasFeature()? Is there any evidence that people
make use of existing feature strings in their programs, using any
implementation?
You provide a feature, then others use it,
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:22:52 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The name Access-Control-Origin is IMHO confusing.
It's more or less identical to how it works for Web sockets. (Called
Websocket-Origin there.)
Lastly, the 'URL' token
Jonas said:
I have a few comments:
The name Access-Control-Origin is IMHO confusing. First of all I
would
expect allow or grant or something like that somewhere in the
syntax
to indicate that the header is granting access. I have two counter
proposals:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin : URL |
I prefer
Access-control: *
Access-control: URL
I suppose it would be slightly shorter, but it's also less clear.
Why is it less clear? Seems explicit to me.
Access-control: -URL
What is the use case for this?
I suggested this as equivalent to Jonas recommendation... Access-Control :
On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:54:17 +0200, Sunava Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I prefer
Access-control: *
Access-control: URL
I suppose it would be slightly shorter, but it's also less clear.
I would be in favor of Access-Control or
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:54:17 +0200, Sunava Dutta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I prefer
Access-control: *
Access-control: URL
I suppose it would be slightly shorter, but it's also less clear.
I would be in favor
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:22:52 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The name Access-Control-Origin is IMHO confusing.
It's more or less identical to how it works for Web sockets. (Called
Websocket-Origin there.)
If only we had the editor of that spec
Hi Lachy (and a question for Anne and Ian at the end).
Boris Zbarski:
* I don't see any indication of what the language bindings for this
IDL should look like in languages which do not support function
overloading based on number of arguments and do not allow functions
with variable
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Anne and Ian (since your specs use overloading for optional arguments):
any opinion?
Not really.
If we want to handle languages that don't have overloading, then we need
to make the IDL always require a separate name for the overloaded
Hi All,
During the F2F we talked about doing preflight-less POSTs in order to be
compatible with microsofts security model and allow them follow the AC
spec for their feature set.
Unfortunately when I brought this up at mozilla there was concern about
doing cross-site POSTing with content
As promised, I've discussed the proposal we discussed at the F2F with my
extended team and we're excited
about making the change to integrate XDomainRequest with the public
scenarios specified by Access Control.
This means IE8 will ship the updated section of Access Control that
enables
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:56:49 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Anne and Ian (since your specs use overloading for optional arguments):
any opinion?
Not really.
If we want to handle languages that don't have overloading, then we need
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:13:52 +0200, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
This is exactly how postMessage() works and it seems nice to align
with that.
I am very strongly against this syntax as it gives a false sense of
security. To the point where I don't think
17 matches
Mail list logo
