On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Arun,
>>
>> I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec
>> says
>> that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with
>> moz-filedata:". Since the UR
I got what you mean. Thanks for clarifying it.
Do you plan to add the origin encoding into the spec? How about using more
generic scheme name "blobdata:"?
Jian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote:
>
>> Hi, Arun,
>>
>> I have one question
On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote:
Hi, Arun,
I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec says
that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with
moz-filedata:". Since the URL is now part of the Blob and it could be used
to refer to both file data blo
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
> Arun:
>
> In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone
> among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob. Is
> that just an oversight, or is that an intentional restriction?
Having readAsDataURL take a Fi
Hi, Arun,
I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec says
that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with
moz-filedata:". Since the URL is now part of the Blob and it could be used
to refer to both file data blob and binary data blob, should we co
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/2/10 3:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
>>
>> Sure, why not? Why would this be limited to File objects?
>>
>> A File is supposed to refer to an actual file on the local hard drive.
>> A Blob is a big bunch of data that you might want to do
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> > On 6/2/10 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
> >>
> >> Arun:
> >>
> >> In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone
> >> among the readAs* methods, still takes a File
On 6/2/10 3:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
Sure, why not? Why would this be limited to File objects?
A File is supposed to refer to an actual file on the local hard drive.
A Blob is a big bunch of data that you might want to do something
with. There's nothing special about a File when it comes t
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/2/10 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
>>
>> Arun:
>>
>> In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone
>> among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob. Is
>> that just an oversight, or is that an int
On 6/2/10 3:42 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
Arun:
In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone
among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob. Is
that just an oversight, or is that an intentional restriction?
That's intentional; readAsDataURL was cited as
Arun:
In the latest version of the spec I see that readAsDataURL, alone
among the readAs* methods, still takes a File rather than a Blob. Is
that just an oversight, or is that an intentional restriction?
Eric
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> Greetings WebApps WG,
Makes sense to me. (Though I'm still not convinced of its usefulness).
/ Jonas
2010/6/2 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> Also, for the sake of keeping things together, when we move this over we
> should probably move FileSystem over as well.
> -Ian
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
Also, for the sake of keeping things together, when we move this over we
should probably move FileSystem over as well.
-Ian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> I'm reaching out to some W3C team contacts to figure out logistics.
>
> -Ian
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:02
I'm reaching out to some W3C team contacts to figure out logistics.
-Ian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
> holds a certain amount of sway. I'd imagine that it would get a lot
> more review and attention fr
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:00:56 +0100, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:13:46 +0900, Mike Belshe
wrote:
// Set the load priority for this request.
void setPriority(unsigned short priority);
Any reason this is not an attribute named priority?
Other than that I wonder if we
I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
holds a certain amount of sway. I'd imagine that it would get a lot
more review and attention from browser companies on WebApps. Apple
isn't on DAP at all, and everyone from mozilla that works on related
APIs are not on the DAP list
I whole-heartedly agree, and have said as much in the past, both on public
MLs and to various W3C team contacts.
-Ian
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps
> would make much more sense...
>
> / Jonas
>
> 2010/6/
It keeps seeming to me that moving the file-writer spec to WebApps
would make much more sense...
/ Jonas
2010/6/2 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Cristiano Sumariva
> wrote:
>>
>> I have been reading the specification on file sec
Finally cycling back on this.
Based on feedback from Olli and Anne, I have revised the spec.
Changes:
* changed the setPriority() method to be an attribute "priority"
* made priority be a string rather than a number
* inserted the "NORMAL" priority as the default XHR priority
Here is th
http://www.w3.org/TR/file-writer-api/
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Cristiano Sumariva wrote:
> I have been reading the specification on file section.
> I would like to ask why not propose that File interface allow a create
> method to let user save data for his use?
>
> Resume:
>
> Interface F
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9832
Summary: keyPath is underspecified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> So you'd have to pass in the javascript expression as a string. This
> >> certainly works but is more than a little ugly. It also complicates
> >> the implementation a good bit since it now has to include a javascript
> >> engine. Not a
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9698
Jeremy Orlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 4/20/2010 11:46 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>
>> The spec is unspecified as to what we should do when a database is opened
>> with
>> a different description than it was previously opened. I'd assume we'd
>> want to
>> update the d
On 5/28/10 2:15 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Jim,
your comments reach us right after the WG decided to take the specification to
CR, but thankfully I was a bit slow with the editing so that we could take them
into account :)
On Ma
Below is the draft agenda for the June 3 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics
via public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened
meeting). Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the
meeting:
http://ww
I have been reading the specification on file section.
I would like to ask why not propose that File interface allow a create
method to let user save data for his use?
Resume:
Interface File extends Blob
{
attribute unsigned long long currentPosition;
readonly attribute signed long long d
Le mercredi 02 juin 2010 à 13:40 +0200, Florian Stegmaier a écrit :
> My overall question is, if you have any experience with WebIDL parser,
> or perhaps could point me to a project, which is most up-to-date to
> the current version of the WebIDL specification? I have also tried to
> validate
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> Hixie - would you please provide a short status and plan for these docs?
>
> 1. Server-Sent Events
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091222/
>
> 2. Web Storage
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-webstorage-20091222/
>
> 3. Web Workers
>
Dear Doug, all,
i am participating the W3C Media Annotations Working Group [1] and co-
edit the API for Resource 1.0 document [2]. Since we are going to LC
soon, we want to initiate implementing the API specified. The main
intention is, that we translate the WebIDL specification of the API
Hixie - would you please provide a short status and plan for these docs?
-Thanks, Art Barstow
Original Message
Subject: Seeking comments on LCWDs of Server-events, Web Storage, Web
Workers; deadline 30-June-2010
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:37:20 +0100
From: Arthur Barstow
31 matches
Mail list logo
