On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:27:10 +0900, Tyler Close
wrote:
Why can't it be made exactly like UMP? All of the requirements in UMP
have been discussed at length and in great detail on this list by some
highly qualified people. The current UMP spec reflects all of that
discussion. By your own admissio
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:47:06 +0900, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
I kinda hate the boolean argument. I would rather have a syntax where
the intent is obvious from the source code. A boolean is not very self-
documenting. In fact I can't even remember right now whether true or
false is the value
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:34:42 +0900, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It looks ok to me, though somewhat lacking on details. What happens if
you call
x = new XMLHttpRequest("foopy");
or
x = new XMLHttpRequest(undefined);
See Web IDL.
You should probably define that the 'anon' argument is a boolean so
On 4/20/2010 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
It was kind of difficult to track. The basic consensus was
that persistent data can and should not be deleted without explicit user
approval.
Hrm, I saw it as people went in with an opinion, and pretty much
everyone left with the same opinion (I though
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>
>>> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm
>>> offline
>>> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
> reconnected to the internet.
>
>
> I t
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>>
This way of t
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>
>>> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm
>>> offline
On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm
>> offline
>> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
>> reconnected to the internet.
>>
> I thin
Hi Michael,
It would be nice if we can come up with a single mechanism for controlling the
durability of local data. This mechanism could be used by IndexedDB, DataCache,
WebStorage, etc.
Nikunj
On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Nikunj
On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
> reconnected to the internet.
I think the problem is that data loss could occur regardless of "
On 4/19/2010 10:08 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Mark Seaborn wrote:
2) It is too permissive because it enforces no limit on the amount of
space a web app can use: A web app from example.com can create an
unlimited number of puppet subdomains: aaa.example.com, bb
On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
reconnected to the internet.
I think a smart browser would include "am I offline" in it's heuristic
for grant
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Jian Li wrote:
> According to the spec, we will dispatch a progress event for a read method.
> But per the "Progress Events 1.0" spec, the attributes "loaded" and "total"
> are defined as "unsigned long".
> interface ProgressEvent : events::Event {
> ..
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
> reconnected to the internet.
>
> Anyone wanting to debate whether or not the UA should be free
According to the spec, we will dispatch a progress event for a read method.
But per the "Progress Events 1.0" spec, the attributes "loaded" and "total"
are defined as "unsigned long".
interface ProgressEvent : events::Event {
...
readonly attribute unsigned long loaded;
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> As I see it, there's no such thing as "permanent" storage for Web browser
> managed data. Even if a site expresses preferences that it would like to
> keep its data resident for a long time, there cannot be a "guarantee" for
> the data to be
This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
reconnected to the internet.
Anyone wanting to debate whether or not the UA should be free to clean up
"persistent storage" without asking the user shoul
As I see it, there's no such thing as "permanent" storage for Web browser
managed data. Even if a site expresses preferences that it would like to keep
its data resident for a long time, there cannot be a "guarantee" for the data
to be there permanently. If applications are bound to have to deal
I'd like to back up and challenge the notion of a per-site quota.
In this discussion and others there is an underlying assumption that each
site has some well defined limit that the user-agent has granted it. I doubt
that's the best model. (Fyi: the chrome team's overly simplistic model
whereby ea
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
>>> wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested i
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
>>> wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be intereste
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9563
Summary: The events passed to the event handlers are
underspecified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
URL: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/
Let's have discussions on the mailing list. That said, let's move minor bugs
such as typos and agreed decisions for applying to the spec over to the issue
tracking system.
HTH,
Nikunj
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 4/19/2010 11:29 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> In order to
On 4/19/2010 11:29 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
In order to have a sane process around processing feedback and keeping track of
progress, may I request you to please use the W3 issue tracking system [1],
when possible?
Do you want us to do this even for issues that have not been fleshed out
on the
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in
firefox
if we can come up with a reasonable API for using
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9562
Summary: Opening a database with a different description is
underspecified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
URL: http://www.mail-archive.com/public-
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in
firefox
if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
>>> if we can come up with a reasonable API f
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
>> if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate
>> constructor or flag or simi
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9561
Summary: IDBRequest should inherit from EventTarget
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
URL: http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg0
797
On 4/20/2010 4:11 AM, Mark Seaborn wrote:
1) It doesn't allow a web app to ask for a storage allocation up front,
before it starts to consume the storage.
Why does that matter?
2) In Opera, the quota can only be increased in multiples of about 15, so it
takes three prompts to get up into the r
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
>> if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate
>> constructor or flag or simi
gt; View Mode Media Feature spec:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/
>
> The deadline for this LCWD's comments is 18 May 2010.
>
> In additions to the WebApps WG and community, we explicitly ask the CSS WG
> to review this LCWD. Comments from others are welcom
WebApps WG, CSS WG, All,
On April 20 the WebApps WG published a Last Call Working Draft (LCWD)
of the View Mode Media Feature spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/
The deadline for this LCWD's comments is 18 May 2010.
In additions to the WebApps WG and communit
There is not really a single detailed W3C policy that's been
mandated for processing spec feedback. It's basically up to each
individual working group to determine the specific details for
what works best for them.
That said, the HTML WG has a documented Decision Policy document
that outlines the
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:53 PM, João Eiras wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:09:14 +0200, Mark Seaborn
> wrote:
>
> Is there any plan for involving the user in storage allocation decisions
>> for
>> IndexedDB? [1]
>>
>> For comparison, the WebStorage API [2] doesn't have any special support
>> f
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9557
Summary: Could we get Mouse Capture via Javascript?
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
40 matches
Mail list logo
