Re: Do we need to rename the Origin header?

Ian Hickson wrote on 1/14/2009 4:07 PM: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: It's not just POST that we need to worry about, ideally we should cover the GET case as well. Or at l

Re: CfC: FPWD of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers; deadline April 10

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working > Draft of the specs below. Thanks Art! -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _

RE: ISSUE-83 (digsig should not be read at runtime): Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature [Widgets]

Comments inline. FWIW my view is that if there is a valid use case for a widget being able to access information in a signature file, either it should access this information using an API or we should add further restrictions to the widget digital signature format and processing. Thanks, Mark

Re: ISSUE-83 (digsig should not be read at runtime): Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature [Widgets]

I think we may need to be more precise since in this context a "signature" means an xml signature structure. An XML Signature is an XML structure that includes a signature value but may also include other information such as properties recorded in the ds:Object element within the ds:Signatu

RE: ISSUE-83 (digsig should not be read at runtime): Instantiated widget should not be able to read digital signature [Widgets]

Hi Art, All, I tracked down my original explanation with subsequent qualification [1]. The problem in a nutshell is that by allowing multiple signatures, which is something we want to do, we create a situation in which not all of a signed widget's files are covered by the signature. This is fine

Re: CfC: FPWD of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers; deadline April 10

I support it too. On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Nokia supports the publication of these FPWDs. -Regards, Art Barstow > > On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: > >> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public >> Working Draft

Re: CfC: FPWD of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers; deadline April 10

Nokia supports the publication of these FPWDs. -Regards, Art Barstow On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft of the specs below. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and en

CfC: FPWD of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers; deadline April 10

This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft of the specs below. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is April 10. -Regards, Art Barstow Begin forwarded

Re: Request for FPWD publication of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > If you think it is possible to have read only Storage values, naturally > we would need some kind of access violation exception to be thrown when > someone tries to change a read only value... Sure. For each Storage object that isn't sessionStorage

[widgets] New WD of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures spec published on March 31

On March 31 a new WD of the Widgets 1.0 Digital Signature spec was published and announced on the W3C's home page: [[ 2009-03-31: The Web Applications Working Group has published a Working Draft of Widgets 1.0: Digital Signatures. This document defines a profile of the XML Signature Syntax

Re: Request for FPWD publication of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers

Hi Ian, On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: >   Web Storage >   http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ The Web App's Widgets arm would like to discuss the possibility for a UA to have some items in the Storage interface to be read-only. We have two dependencies on Storage: the ele

[widgets] Draft Minutes from 2 April 2009 Voice Conference

The draft minutes from the April 2 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before 16 April 2009 (the