Hi,
Back in February, I announced here a first release of a document
compiling all the technologies that I had identified as relevant to the
development of Web applications on mobile devices:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0650.html
I have just released an updated
Le vendredi 13 mai 2011 à 12:19 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
Thanks for creating this Dom (FYI, I made some edits and updates yesterday).
Thanks! As you may have seen, I've just released a new version of that
document which includes your updates
On May 31, Last Call Working Draft #2 of the DOM 3 Events spec was
published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-DOM-Level-3-Events-20110531/
If you have any comments on this spec, please send them to the following
mail list by June 28 at the latest:
www-...@w3.org
-Art Barstow
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2011 12:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Israel Hilerio
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [indexedDB] OptionalParameter question on
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Israel Hilerio:
For the optional parameters variable that is expected by the
IDBDatabase.createObjectStore function, would it be possible to constrain
the variable to have the keyPath and autoIncrement attributes as
For bug# 12179 [1], what additional information we would like to capture beyond
what is stipulated in the section below regarding the firing of VERSION_CHANGE
events:
4.8 VERSION_CHANGE transaction steps. [2]
Israel
[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12179
[2]
On Tue, May 17, 2011 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-
requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Israel Hilerio
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:57 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: [IndexedDB] IDBDatabase.transaction
On 5/31/2011 10:56 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
Should I interpret the silence to mean we agree?
I believe that's a safe thing to do :)
Cheers,
Shawn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
For bug# 12179 [1], what additional information we would like to capture
beyond what is stipulated in the section below regarding the firing of
VERSION_CHANGE events:
4.8 VERSION_CHANGE transaction steps. [2]
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
-Original Message-
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-
requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Israel Hilerio
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The editors' draft of the typed array spec has been updated with a
strawman proposal for this zero-copy, transfer-of-ownership behavior:
http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/
Feedback would be greatly appreciated. For the purposes of keeping the
conversation
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12836
Summary: WorkerLocation lacks a strigifier
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#wor
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12816
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12805
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Friday, May 27, 2011 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
However, I think there might be another solution to this whole
situation. There really is no reason that only binary data can be
received as a Blob. Getting data as a Blob is useful any time
Yes in this case, but by default no. :-)
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 10:57 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
-Original Message-
From:
What should happen when the auto-generated key reaches its max size? What
error should we throw, UNKNOWN_ERR?
Israel
On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:03:49 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
We think this makes the design more future-proof because otherwise and
new information required prior to establishing the connection will need
to be added to the constructor arguments.
We can easily overload the constructor,
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:03:49 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
We think this makes the design more future-proof because otherwise
and new information required prior to establishing the connection
will need to be added to the constructor
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Travis Leithead
travis.leith...@microsoft.com wrote:
The editors' draft of the typed array spec has been updated with a
strawman proposal for this zero-copy, transfer-of-ownership behavior:
http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/
Jonas Sicking:
At least in the indexedDB case we need to enumerate the object anyway
since we want to throw if it contains any properties that we don't
understand. This is for forwards compatible reasons.
Hence we automatically limit ourselves to enumerable properties, so
toString wouldn't
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12816
Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Jonas's suggestion of adding another argument to postMessage, and
Gregg's generalization to declare it as an array of objects to be
transferred rather than copied, sounds good.
We could change make MessagePort and ArrayBuffer both inherit from a
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh
Gregor
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:05 AM
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Based on that, my conclusion is that we should go with what Pablo is
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
At least in the indexedDB case we need to enumerate the object anyway
since we want to throw if it contains any properties that we don't
understand. This is for forwards compatible reasons.
Hence we
We discussed evictable stores some time ago and captured it in bug 11350 [1],
but I haven't seen further discussion on it and it hasn't gone into the spec.
I'm curious on where folks are with this? Should we move it to v2? Should we
just allow UAs to have their own policy around eviction (back
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using locale in the wrong
context. I meant to have the API take a proper collation identifier. The
identifier can be as specific as the caller wants it to be. The
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12837
Summary: Define unloading document cleanup steps
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12838
Summary: Define garbage collection policy
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
We discussed evictable stores some time ago and captured it in bug 11350 [1],
but I haven't seen further discussion on it and it hasn't gone into the spec.
I'm curious on where folks are with this? Should we move
-Original Message-
From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh
Gregor
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:49 PM
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using locale in the
31 matches
Mail list logo
