Jonas Sicking:
> Unfortunately there is no way to express this in WebIDL, so I think we
> need to describe it in prose instead. I'll raise this with Cameron,
> but I think that since at this point only IndexedDB uses these
> "static" functions, it might not make sense to add support to WebIDL.
I t
Hi Nathan.
I can give you some off-the-cuff personal opinions on the questions you
ask.
Nathan:
> interface Store {
> readonly attribute unsigned long length;
>
> T get (in unsigned long index);
> void add (in T t);
> void merge(in Store store);
>
On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>>> ...But the existing responseText and responseXML would still work as
>>> they work atm? They would be basically the old,
>>> sort-of-deprecated-API? If developer wants to get stringified value
>>> from ArrayBuffer response, she/he could use .resp
A few other items to add to the list to discuss tomorrow:
- Blobs support: have we discussed explicitly how things work when an object
has a blob (file, array, etc.) as one of its properties?
- Close on collation and international support
- How do applications request that they need more storage?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11190
Summary: Make scripts created by createContextualFragment()
executable
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: ASSIGNED
On 10/30/10 3:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I'm not entirely following what your concern is. I.e. what usage
pattern you are worried will either break in existing code, or people
will get wrong in new code.
Well, one simple usage pattern is using the jquery "get me some stuff"
API and then tryin
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 09:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
>
>
> The one where you pick one up
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 09:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
>
>
> The one where you pick one up
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first
On 11/01/2010 08:57 PM, Chris Marrin wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 10/30/2010 09:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky
wrote:
On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 09:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>> On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
>>>
>>> The one where you pick
On 10/30/2010 09:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
The one where you pick one up front and it throws if you ask for something
else, right?
I ag
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> Hello Art, Marcos, and Webapps,
>
> During our teleconference yesterday [1], I was tasked with formally replying
> to this request on behalf of the Internationalization WG.
>
> I would still like to see the 'locale' field restored to the
Hi Viji,
Sorry for taking sooo long to respond... I've attempted to address
your feedback below.
For the "disposition of comments" for this specification, it is
important that you respond to this email with confirmation that you
are either satisfied or dissatisfied with the changes I have made.
T
Hi,
below is an attempt to close ISSUE-150, ISSUE-151, ISSUE-152 (see [0],
[1], [2] below).
On 10/21/10 3:22 PM, Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
ACTION-591: Checkin updates for issues 150 and 151 (Web Applications Working
Group)
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/acti
Hi Bryan,
We've looked at this in Apache Wookie, which does use Widgets in a
browser/webserver context. The general approach we've been discussing is
similar to how Apache Shindig handles oAuth - to put the oAuth logic within the
framework itself rather than in the Widget. So these issues aroun
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> IDBKeyRange is in need of some cleanup. The first issue is its
> >> constructors. Currently the IDL
On 11/1/2010 5:29 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
If not, I think we should avoid adding surface area for something we don't
really understand very well.
I agree with this. Less is better at this point I think (when
appropriate, of course).
Cheers,
Shawn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptograp
Hi,
Can anyone point to an example of how to use HTTP redirect-based protocols
such as OAuth with widgets? There seem to be issues with the use of these
protocols due to the difference between widgets and browser-based webapps,
in particular with the two aspects:
* widgets cannot access network res
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > What items should we try to cover during the f2f?
> >> >
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Jonas Sicking
>
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > What items should we try to cover during the f2f?
>> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > P
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > What items should we try to cover during the f2f?
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> > P.S. I'm happy to discuss all of this f2f tomorrow rather than
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wro
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> What items should we try to cover during the f2f?
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> > P.S. I'm happy to discuss all of this f2f tomorrow rather than over
>> > email
>> > now.
>>
>> Speaking of which, would be great
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11187
Summary: [IndexedDB] Repeated calls to IDBCursor.continue()
should throw
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
>
What items should we try to cover during the f2f?
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> > P.S. I'm happy to discuss all of this f2f tomorrow rather than over
> email
> > now.
>
> Speaking of which, would be great to have an agenda. Some of the
> bigger items are:
>
> * Dynami
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wrote:
>
Hi all,
Workers seem to use NavigatorOnLine, but it is not specified
whether online/offline events should be dispatched.
I think they should be, since otherwise tracking the changes to
.onLine is hard.
-Olli
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > Actually, what's the use case for readyState? I can't thin
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > Actually, what's the use case for readyState? I can't think of any uses
>> > that we'd want to encourage. Maybe we should ju
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > Actually, what's the use case for readyState? I can't think of any uses
> > that we'd want to encourage. Maybe we should just remove it.
>
> The use-case that I've heard in similar si
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Actually, what's the use case for readyState? I can't think of any uses
> that we'd want to encourage. Maybe we should just remove it.
The use-case that I've heard in similar situations goes something like this:
Code makes a request and at
Actually, what's the use case for readyState? I can't think of any uses
that we'd want to encourage. Maybe we should just remove it.
J
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:50 PM, wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10430
>
> Summary: [IndexedDB] We need to make it more clear
35 matches
Mail list logo
