Hi Dom, All,
I am not convinced by the need to include the word "pattern" in the name of the
attribute taken the current WARP text.
Specifically because the semantics of the value of the attribute is more like
namespace or just the leading part of the URI.
Pattern would be ok, if e.g. we would u
Hi, Folks-
Arthur Barstow wrote (on 10/1/09 9:32 AM):
Sorry for the cross posting ...
Doug - since I've had at least one question about the use and scope of
public-script-coord with respect to the Web IDL, would you please
clarify if it should be used for all future discussions related to Web
I
Dear public-webapps,
I would like to propose a small extension to the current draft
specification for Strict Transport Security.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Sep/att-0051/draft-hodges-strict-transport-sec-05.plain.html
The Problem
---
At the moment, if one CA in
Sorry for the cross posting ...
Doug - since I've had at least one question about the use and scope
of public-script-coord with respect to the Web IDL, would you please
clarify if it should be used for all future discussions related to
Web IDL or just coordination-related discussions re Web
Hi Marcos,
>>It is out of scope to define how bindings to features occur.
Why? Where is the scope defined?
And yes, i.e. we should not limit bindings to API only.
>>If you want to discover if you
>>have a feature, try to run it.
P&C says:
" A feature is a runtime component (e.g. an Application P
Hi there,
Reading through the current WARP draft, I note that the semantics of the
element appear to preclude an important use case (for us).
At BBC R&D one of the things we're currently working on is the control
of personal video recorders and TV set-top boxes, from other devices on
the ho
The draft minutes from the October 1 D Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/01-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 8 October 2009 (th
Hi Robin,
Thanks for your comments.
My answers inline below.
Thanks,
Marcin
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Scott Wilson
wrote:
> #1 & #2 are the same issue; we haven't reached consensus yet, though as
> Marcos says in his response on #1, we are in agreement over what we are
> trying to achieve with this part of the spec - we just need to figure out
> which of the two ap
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:41 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
Give the July CR says it will not end until November 1, it would
seem a bit strange if we published a new LC before then. Given this
and the publication moratorium around the TPAC time frame, I think
Nov 10 is the first publishing opportunity.
Le jeudi 01 octobre 2009 à 06:41 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
> Give the July CR says it will not end until November 1, it would seem
> a bit strange if we published a new LC before then.
Actually, the end of CR period really means "the document won't go to PR
before then" - I don't think the
On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:58 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
A rough schedule would then be: during the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting agree
to all changes for LC#3; November 10 LC#3 is published and Exclusion
period begins; December 1 LC#3 ends; Dec 9 CR#2 is published;
January 5 CR#2 ends as does the Exclusion pe
Scott Wilson wrote:
Hmm, I raised this one too.
I can't see how the origin handles instances exactly, and the concept of
"origin" doesn't seem all that relevant to our implementation anyway -
it looks more like something for browser makers to worry over?
Why is "origin of a widget" preferable
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 18:09 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> I am not particularly comfortable with skipping CR#2 especially since we
>> have no way of knowing who is actually implementing our published CR, in
>> particular the normative Co
On Sep 30, 2009, at 20:49 , Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Maybe WebDatabase should be WebSQLDatabase or WebSQLDB
I have suggested this before [1], but fighting about names seems to
be a lost cause in this WG.
To be fair and honest, fighting about n
Hi,
On Sep 30, 2009, at 18:09 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
I am not particularly comfortable with skipping CR#2 especially
since we have no way of knowing who is actually implementing our
published CR, in particular the normative Conformance Checker
requirements that will presumably be removed f
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 16:07 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 20:08 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
5.1
Localization
Shall it be possible for the widget to programmatically discover the
localization path it was loaded from (section 9 of P&C)?
Yes,
17 matches
Mail list logo
