Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's baaaack!

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote: >> >> Right.  That's the same point Arve made.  I don't see a problem with >> it.  Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation detail >> of its widget container - the base URI - but it

Re: Normalization, was: RE: [Widget URI] Internationalization, widget IRI?

Marcin Hanclik wrote: Hi Marcos, The spec just treats them as opaque strings. Yes. This is the reason for my email to I18N. Ok, so what you are saying is, given an XML document's encoding, any URI should be converted to a default encoding (say, UTF-8)? This is one of the proposed solutio

Normalization, was: RE: [Widget URI] Internationalization, widget IRI?

Hi Marcos, >>The spec just treats them as opaque strings. Yes. This is the reason for my email to I18N. >>Ok, so what you are saying is, given an XML document's encoding, any URI >>should be converted to a default encoding (say, UTF-8)? This is one of the proposed solutions. In the email to I18N

Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)

Marcin Hanclik wrote: Hi Marcos, is pretty simple, logical, and gets the job done for most use cases. The above is not the case e.g. for mailto: or tel:, specifically if you want to be more specific/selective with the additional arguments (a la subdomains). Access requests for those are

RE: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)

Hi Marcos, >>is pretty simple, logical, and gets the job done for most use cases. The above is not the case e.g. for mailto: or tel:, specifically if you want to be more specific/selective with the additional arguments (a la subdomains). It is also not the case for the distinction between progra

Re: [Widget URI] Internationalization, widget IRI?

Marcin Hanclik wrote: Hi Marcos, As a summary of the URI/IRI-related issues, we have currently the following as far as I can tell: 1. URI/IRI normalization in P&C [1], it is currently at I18N [2] 2. Widget URI issues related to internationalization [3] The URI/IRI normalization in P&C is mai

Re: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)

Marcin Hanclik wrote: Hi Marcos, What you did in 192 characters, the access element does in 52. That is the point of the access element: to make these kind of annoying declarations easy to write. I do not think that the conciseness is the main driver of this aspect of the config.xml. In

RE: [WARP] Last Call comments (1)

Hi Marcos, >>What you did in 192 characters, the access element does in 52. >> >>That is the point of the access element: to make these kind of >>annoying declarations easy to write. I do not think that the conciseness is the main driver of this aspect of the config.xml. What matters seems to be

Re: [WebSimpleDatabase] New spec, editor's draft available

> > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDatabase/ > FYI: you should probably copy-paste the link that nikunj sent in his email. clicking on it takes you to http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/. dumi

RE: [Widget URI] Internationalization, widget IRI?

Hi Marcos, As a summary of the URI/IRI-related issues, we have currently the following as far as I can tell: 1. URI/IRI normalization in P&C [1], it is currently at I18N [2] 2. Widget URI issues related to internationalization [3] The URI/IRI normalization in P&C is mainly for attribute values t

Re: Web Notifications, do we need a new spec?

Hi Marcos, I'm doing the implementation for Chromium so I'm pretty familiar with notifications. Although I'm fairly new to the process, I would be happy to volunteer to help, since I would definitely like to see a new notifications spec come together. -John On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Marc

Re: Web Notifications, do we need a new spec?

John Gregg wrote: > Hi Marcos, > > I'm doing the implementation for Chromium so I'm pretty familiar with > notifications. Although I'm fairly new to the process, I would be happy > to volunteer to help, since I would definitely like to see a new > notifications spec come together. Great! Bas