On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this something you'd like to be implemented in the browsers,
Yes.
and if yes, why? What would be the reasons to not just use script
libraries (like your prototype).
FAQ item also coming for this.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this something you'd like to be implemented in the browsers,
Yes.
and if yes, why? What would be the reasons to not just use script
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this something you'd like to be implemented in the browsers,
Yes.
and
Scott Wilson wrote:
Right, I've done some basic work on the tests in Apache Wookie - most of them
seem to work OK so far; I need to do interactive testing next - I've tested
processing the update element in config.xml and acquiring and validating the
UDD, but not actually processing the
On 04/28/2011 12:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this something you'd like to be implemented in the
browsers,
Yes.
and if yes, why? What would be the reasons to not just use
script libraries (like your
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 4/22/11 8:35 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Myself and a few other chromium folks have been working on a design
for a formalized separation between
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
What do you think?
- Is this
On 28 Apr 2011, at 12:19, Rich Tibbett wrote:
Scott Wilson wrote:
Right, I've done some basic work on the tests in Apache Wookie - most of
them seem to work OK so far; I need to do interactive testing next - I've
tested processing the update element in config.xml and acquiring and
On 04/28/2011 04:46 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Would be good to know what are the use cases you had in mind.
I'm never sure if I'm using the term use case correctly =-).
Our primary motivator is the needs of web applications,
And what are those needs? It is hard to judge the proposal
if
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:57:20 +0200, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
One more thing, the widget at:
http://people.opera.com/harig/wupdres/resources/pass.wgt
... isn't valid as its not well formed - there should be ? at end of
line 1.
Fixed.
--
Hari Kumar G
On 28 Apr 2011, at 14:11, Hari Kumar G wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:57:20 +0200, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
...
One more thing, the widget at:
http://people.opera.com/harig/wupdres/resources/pass.wgt
... isn't valid as its not well formed - there should be
Hixie, All,
April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the
Server-Sent Events spec [SSE-LC].
Since that LC was published, I noted 1 set of comments and 1 new bug:
* CfC: server-sent-events; 15-Apr-2011; Ian Clelland
Hixie, All,
April 21 was the comment deadline for the March 10 LCWD of the Web
Workers spec [WW-LC].
Since that LC was published, I noted 2 set of comments and 2 new bugs:
* Adrian Bateman; 9-Mar-2011
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0877.html
* Travis
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hixie - what normative changes have been made in the ED [WW-ED] (since
the LC was published) that would affect an implementation based on the
March 10 LC?
No idea, I don't track changes at the level of individual W3C specs for
these technologies.
All,
What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs:
1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match
implementation behavior
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
2. Bug-12272; Improve section on DNS spoofing attacks to address user
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
What is the plan to address the following Web Storage bugs:
1. Bug-12111; spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match
implementation behavior
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111
2. Bug-12272; Improve section on
Well, I guess the good news is that (at the time of this writing), there
aren't 355 bugs ;).
All - Inputs and proposals for these bugs are encouraged!
On Apr/28/2011 2:33 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
What is the plan to address the following Web
I am a newcomer to the Server-Sent Events spec, so my apologies if I am
covering old ground.
While I can understand that Server-Sent Events may be intending to start
off simple, I wonder whether there is some reason a formal mechanism was
not adopted to at least allow the specification of
user to parse the response text, why not simply allow each event to be a
JSON-encoded object of some kind (boolean, number, string, array,
object). Then the event.data could be an object which was already
conveniently accessible to JavaScript consumers. Presumably server-side
libraries would
Hey folks,
Context: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110428#l-707
Current browsers disagree about how to handle div
id=x/divscriptvar x;/script. Webkit browsers leave x pointing to
the div, whereas IE, Firefox and Opera make x undefined [1]. (There is
content that depends on x being
On 4/28/11 4:31 PM, Magnus Kristiansen wrote:
Current browsers disagree about how to handle div
id=x/divscriptvar x;/script. Webkit browsers leave x pointing to
the div, whereas IE, Firefox and Opera make x undefined [1]. (There is
content that depends on x being undefined, but I don't have any
Boris Zbarsky:
For what it's worth, the way Gecko implements this is by inserting
an object into the prototype chain of the Window that handles these
property gets. This means that |var| (which defines a prop on the
Window itself) will always shadow the named props, which is the
behavior you
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Brett Zamir bret...@gmail.com wrote:
I am a newcomer to the Server-Sent Events spec, so my apologies if I am
covering old ground.
While I can understand that Server-Sent Events may be intending to start off
simple, I wonder whether there is some reason a
On 4/28/11, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
For what it's worth, the way Gecko implements this is by inserting an
object into the prototype chain of the Window that handles these
property gets. This means that |var| (which defines a prop on the
Window itself) will always shadow the
On 4/28/11, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 04/28/2011 04:46 AM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
Would be good to know what are the use cases you had in mind.
I'm never sure if I'm using the term use case correctly =-).
Our primary motivator is the needs of web applications,
And
25 matches
Mail list logo
