I updated section 4 to correspond to this:
"If the signatures list is not empty, sort the list of signatures by
the file name field in ascending numerical order (e.g.signature1.xml
followed by signature2.xml followed by signature3.xml etc)."
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
O
(Reply-to set to www-dom).
Hi folks,
My regrets for the call as I will be in a plane. Art has kindly agreed to
chair the call this week, but that gives it a hard limit of one hour
duration (do I say that like it is a bad thing??). I figure the following
will readily provide material for that tim
On 3/9/09 2:19 PM, David Rogers wrote:
Marcos,
As mentioned in the F2F, this is one of the reasons you can see why you need to
look at defining content types more closely - you need to decide what a widget
'is' otherwise we're potentially in trouble.
I agree with Rainer's point about policy
Dear Marcos,
We already have defined two parameters that identify a zip archive as a widget
resource:
a) The content type in a server's response.
b) The file extension for a widget resource that is distributed on memory cards
for instance.
Roughly thinking, I have the impression that this is
Marcos,
As mentioned in the F2F, this is one of the reasons you can see why you need to
look at defining content types more closely - you need to decide what a widget
'is' otherwise we're potentially in trouble.
I agree with Rainer's point about policy.
Thanks,
David.
-Original Message-
Dear Marcos,
Which different security privileges does a widget have in comparison to any
other content? Doesn't it depend on a security policy that we do not define in
the W3C?
Best Regards,
Rainer
*
T-Mobile International
Terminal Technology
Rainer Hillebr
Opera would like to make the config file in widgets packages
mandatory. Our rationale is that having at least one config.xml file
at the root of the widget give a sure way to identify a zip archive as
a widget; otherwise arbitrary zip packages with an index.html could be
fed to a widget engine and
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:20:25 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Arve,
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:14 AM, ext Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
After the last F2F in Paris, I spoke to Ian Hickson about the Storage
APIs in HTML5, and my understanding is now that his intent is to split
this part of the spec into
Arve,
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:14 AM, ext Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
After the last F2F in Paris, I spoke to Ian Hickson about the
Storage APIs in HTML5, and my understanding is now that his intent
is to split this part of the spec into a separate document. This
makes it much easier for us to ref
Hi,
Here are a few comments on the 4 March version of the editor's draft:
*Abstract
"This document standardizes a general packaging format for applications."
-> just "applications"? Not web applications, or sofware applications, or
something less vague?
"This document standardizes a general pac
On 3/9/09 11:00 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mar 6, 2009, at 15:29, Marcos Caceres wrote:
2. The XHTML mapping should also appear in the file identification table
[2].
What version of XHTML should I be pointing to? 1.0 or 1.1?
Does it need to say anything more than that .xhtml maps to
app
On Mar 6, 2009, at 15:29, Marcos Caceres wrote:
2. The XHTML mapping should also appear in the file identification
table
[2].
What version of XHTML should I be pointing to? 1.0 or 1.1?
Does it need to say anything more than that .xhtml maps to application/
xhtml+xml? The media type is de
12 matches
Mail list logo
