Collin Jackson wrote on 11/8/2009 11:06 PM:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Bil Corry wrote:
>> How does the server identify the STS clients? If there isn't a way (which I
>> don't believe there is), then given the STS requirement that a server should
>> redirect from non-HTTPS to HTTPS, wha
Hi Kris,
Thanks for the insightful feedback.
On Nov 7, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
Is there any intended restrictions on caching of objects returned by
queries and gets with WebSimpleDB?
Currently, the spec does specify any required behavior in terms of
caching objects. As an impleme
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Please send in use cases, requirements, concerns, and concrete
suggestions about the general topic (regardless of your opinion
about my
suggestion).
Some use cases:
* Ability to manage attachments i
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think the likely outcome of the current situation will be that
new mobile
browsers will have a harder time establishing themselves in the
market,
since many popular mobile web apps will be using a database
technology where
the query
On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
* SQL doesn't give any performance guarantees. Many times people
tweak
their SQL in order to get the implementation to use
Hi Nikunj,
I find the subjects of programmable caches and local http servers highly
interesting for the browser. The below comments and questions are from a
quick read-through of the supplied links, so please excuse any
misunderstandings:
1) API orthogonality
The spec invents yet another cachin
Hi Adam,
> It's too bad you didn't CC me on the discussion because I think you
> misunderstood several of my points.
Thanks. We've actually discussed your emails in meetings. I'm glad you've
cleared up our misunderstanding.
> Then what are you taking about? I've attached two screen shots of
>
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
> Please send in use cases, requirements, concerns, and concrete
> suggestions about the general topic (regardless of your opinion about my
> suggestion).
Some use cases:
* Ability to manage attachments in Web-based mail clients, both receiving
and
Marcos,
Re "I'm personally not in favor of trying to deviate too much from the Web
security model.": I agree with you, and that is the point of the comments. The
"web security model" (I think you mean the same-origin restriction) does not
restrict access to image content from anywhere, like the
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 5) I would summarize the tradeoff between this mechanism for a simple
> cross-site communication scenario vs. the CORS way to do it as follows:
>
> a) In the CORS-based protocol, if you change the scenario in a way that
> violates the D
The specific implementation of SharedWorkers in WebKit does this currently,
but that is not a feature of the spec - I have this on my todo list to
resolve once I've finished the Chromium version of shared workers.
-atw
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> 07.11.2009,
Shared workers do not depend on HTML documents for resource loading. I think
the webkit impl may have it cobbled together that way at the moment, but
thats per-happen-stance, not per-the-spec.
Shared workers effectively establish a new top-level-browsing-context all
unto themselves.
On Mon, Nov 9
07.11.2009, в 10:47, Michael Nordman написал(а):
I've been wondering if SharedWorkers should have a means of
establishing an appcache similar to how pages can via the manifest='x'> mechanism.
My mental model is that a shared worker is very much like a top-
level page with respect to appcach
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> * SQL doesn't give any performance guarantees. Many times people tweak
>> their SQL in order to get the implementation to use a desired
>> evaluation stategy. This won't work
On Nov 9, 2009, at 16:41 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
That would be 'application', but not maximized.
Uh, but those can be two different windowing modes, with the chrome
subtly different and different behaviour (e.g. the window can't be
dragged if maximised).
That's UA/OS dependent.
How it is im
I support publishing this document as a FPWD.
Adam
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working Draft
> (FPWD) of the File API spec, latest Editor's Draft at:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/
Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 13:05 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon :
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of view
modes: the difference be
On Nov 9, 2009, at 13:05 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon
wrote:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon :
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of
view
modes: the difference between maximised and
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
I support the publication as well.
-Sam
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Bil Corry wrote:
> How does the server identify the STS clients? If there isn't a way (which I
> don't believe there is), then given the STS requirement that a server should
> redirect from non-HTTPS to HTTPS, what does that mean for UAs that don't
> understand
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:44:09 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
At the Web Apps WG face-to-face meeting at TPAC, all parties agreed (in
the room at least) to let the spec continue without fully specifying the
SQL dialect.
This is not at all the sense that I got. Hixie agreed to specify some
On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:19 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Benoit,
2009/11/3 SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS ftgroup.com>
All,
Reviewing the spec there is no access to the License attribute.
Shouldn’t it be added in the liste of the accessible attributes?
Thank you for raising this important iss
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I agree that your Gecko example would be questionable. But to give an
> example on the other side of the fence, WebKit uses a copy of Mozilla's
> image decoding code, and yet I think our implementation of the element
> clearly counts a
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> If that were the extent of the implementation, I might agree. However, that
> doesn't accurately characterize at least WebKit's WebDatabase
> implementation. WebKit has around 15k lines of code which implement
> asynchronicity, do check
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> 2009/10/5 Robin Berjon :
>>>
>>> it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of view
>>> modes: the difference between maximised and fullscreen (or perhaps
>>> fullscreen
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use the
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0100, Jonas Sicking wrote:
* SQL doesn't give any performance guarantees. Many times people tweak
their SQL in order to get the implementation to use a desired
evaluation stategy. This won't work in the likely event that different
implementations use different evalu
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C
library independent? Obviously there'
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations t
On Nov 5, 2009, at 01:58 , Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Rather, the CfC applies to:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
I support this publication.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
On Nov 1, 2009, at 18:06 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
2009/10/5 Robin Berjon :
it seems to me that there's a missing distinction in our list of
view modes: the difference between maximised and fullscreen (or
perhaps fullscreen and all-screen).
Maximised is the case in which the application takes
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
>> implementations though.
>>
>
> Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C library
> independent
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
Hi Marcos,
To be clear, your answer addresses point (2) only, and while I realize that the
idea proposed may not apply to all valid start files, it nonetheless did
address the point of the comment. It may not be the best solution but it is
just a start on
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item12
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0477.html
From a technical point of view, are we expecting that there will
actually be mul
34 matches
Mail list logo