On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really wan
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want these
>>> functions to appear on documents created using XM
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want these
>> functions to appear on documents created using XMLHttpRequest,
>> DOMParser, etc.
>>
>> Quick, someone sugges
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want these
> functions to appear on documents created using XMLHttpRequest,
> DOMParser, etc.
>
> Quick, someone suggest a name, whoever comes up with one first wins a
> beer for nex
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:47 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Oh, definitely, we still need the createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL
>> functions. Sorry, that was probably unclear.
>>
>> However we're still left without a place to put them. Ma
On Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:47 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Oh, definitely, we still need the createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL
> functions. Sorry, that was probably unclear.
>
> However we're still left without a place to put them. Maybe it's as
> simple as putting them on the document object?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Keean Schupke
> wrote:
> >>
> >> You can do it in SQL because tables that hold a reference to an ID can
> >> declare the reference in the schema
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> I think it's useful and it's one of the things I recall people asking for
> early on, but I agree it's flawed as is. I guess we should just remove it
> for now and come back to it later based on demand.
I removed it for now. Unfortunately a
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11280
Jonas Sicking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Jonas Sicking
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Keean Schupke wrote:
>>
>> You can do it in SQL because tables that hold a reference to an ID can
>> declare the reference in the schema. I guess without the meta-data to do
>> this it cannot be done.
>
> Ev
- Original Message -
> On 11/12/10 11:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > OK, then we need to define rules for instantiating a Date object
> > here
> > (in the face of strings that may or may not be valid date format
> > strings, or may be ambiguous, note). Is the proposal to just call
> > new
- Original Message -
> Hi there,
>
> "A valid Blob URI could look like:
> blob:550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-44665544#aboutABBA"
>
> ...that's actually a URI *reference*, not a URI (because of the
> fragment
> identifier)
>
Duly noted. I'll fix this!
-- A*
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>> wrote:
>> > The email I responded to: "It would make sense if you make setting a key
>> > to
>> > undefined semantically equivale
Hi Ian,
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:47:18 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
When WebApps re-chartered last Spring, Web Messaging was added to our
Charter thus there is an expectation we will publish it.
I really don't think that what our charters say sets much
I support this.
/ Jonas
On Saturday, November 6, 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants
> expressed in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft
> of Web Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to do so:
>
>
On 11/12/10 11:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
OK, then we need to define rules for instantiating a Date object here
(in the face of strings that may or may not be valid date format
strings, or may be ambiguous, note). Is the proposal to just call new
Date(str)?
Er, nevermind. We're talking about
On 11/12/10 11:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Plus if you're going to do any actual work with it - there's no sense
parsing a date string just so you check if the file was modified more
than a week ago, when you could do it directly with a Date.
OK, then we need to define rules for instantiating
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:33:04 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that a readonly Date object returned for lastModified is one way
>> to go, but considered it overkill for the feature. If you think a Date
>> object provides gr
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:33:04 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
wrote:
I agree that a readonly Date object returned for lastModified is one way
to go, but considered it overkill for the feature. If you think a Date
object provides greater utility to simply get at the lastModified data,
I'm entirely
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:06:59 +0100, Arun Ranganathan
wrote:
If we're going to keep both functions around, then it's honestly not
*that much* of an improvement to move them from window* to document*, is
it?
Polluting the global object less is always a win.
In this case, since we're going
Yes, I prefer it due to the symmetry, and agree that its a judgment call. I
guess the advantage of allowing it is library's can disallow if they like.
The reverse is not true, if you disallow it a library cannot allow it.
Cheers,
Keean
On 12 Nov 2010 09:00, "Jeremy Orlow" wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12,
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> > The email I responded to: "It would make sense if you make setting a key
> to
> > undefined semantically equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if
> it
> > does not exist)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> You can do it in SQL because tables that hold a reference to an ID can
> declare the reference in the schema. I guess without the meta-data to do
> this it cannot be done.
Even in SQL, I'd be very hesitant to do this.
> Why not get the
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Jonas Sicking
You can do it in SQL because tables that hold a reference to an ID can
declare the reference in the schema. I guess without the meta-data to do
this it cannot be done.
Why not get the auto-increment to wrap and skip collisions? What about
signed numbers?
Cheers,
Keean.
On 12 November 2010 08:23,
We can't compact because the developer may be expecting to look items up by
ID with IDs in another table, on the server, in memory, etc. There's no way
to do it.
J
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Keean Schupke wrote:
> The other thing you could do is specify that when you get a wrap (IE
> so
27 matches
Mail list logo
