http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10337
Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Hey, never too late to jump in I guess!
On May 12, 2011, at 14:54 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think relaxing the syntax is the right path forward.
I'm ok with leaving it as is... but I guess we will have to see
On Jun 2, 2011, at 09:53 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Consider this scenario: the widget requests access to www.google.com.
On a local level google redirects to .pl or co.in . With WARP, if we
checked redirects the local google page would be blocked. It would be
impossible for any developer to take
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Robin Berjon robin.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, never too late to jump in I guess!
On May 12, 2011, at 14:54 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think relaxing the syntax is the right path
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Robin Berjon robin.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 09:53 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Consider this scenario: the widget requests access to www.google.com.
On a local level google redirects to .pl or co.in . With WARP, if we
checked redirects the local
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:23 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Robin Berjon robin.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 09:53 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Consider this scenario: the widget requests access to www.google.com.
On a local level google redirects to .pl or
Hi All,
Despite Web Storage bug 12111 now having a fix [1], the elephant in the
room [2] for this spec is still the mutex issue encapsulated in the spec:
[[
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/Web%20Storage.html#issues
The use of the storage mutex to avoid race conditions is currently
considered by
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27 at
the latest.
I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed from browsers it is
part of the web platform and as such requires
Reminder: June 28 deadline for comments on 3 widget LCWDs: Packaging,
Interface and DigSig.
Original Message
Subject: [widgets] RfC: LCWDs of Widget {Packaging, Interface, Digital
Signature}; deadline June 28
Resent-Date:Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:40:50 +
Resent-From:
On 2011-06-20 13:11, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27
at the latest.
I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed from browsers it is
part of
Reminder: June 28 is the deadline for comments for the DOM 3 Events Last
Call Working Draft.
Original Message
Subject:RfC: DOM 3 Events Last Call Working Draft; deadline June 28
Resent-Date:Tue, 31 May 2011 15:54:29 +
Resent-From:public-webapps@w3.org
Date:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27 at
the latest.
I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal that work on this has ended.
1) You do not get patent policy protection. 2) The work has not ended if
the feature
On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal that work on this has ended.
1) You do not get patent policy protection.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Marcos Caceres
marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
Hi,
Is there some means to explicitly indicate the order in which
certificates in an xml dig sig file should be processed? The problem
is that if you screw up the certificate order in the xml file, the
validator (e.g,. xmlsec) does not know which cert is the end-entity.
See also the following
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:57:44 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
The exit criteria is in the Draft CR and is based on the criteria in the
XHR CR:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/#crec
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and
Marcos
No there is currently no such definition of certificate order in XML Signature.
I believe this question was answered correctly on the aleksey xmlsec
development list in the message after the one you quoted, which is why I didn't
join the discussion:
Hi Frederick,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos
No there is currently no such definition of certificate order in XML
Signature.
I believe this question was answered correctly on the aleksey xmlsec
development list in the message after the one you
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Marcos Caceres marcosscace...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there some means to explicitly indicate the order in which
certificates in an xml dig sig file should be processed? The problem
is that if you screw up the certificate order in the xml file, the
validator (e.g,. xmlsec) does not
Would like to add:
In the case that a user agent has to treat a widget as an invalid
Widget package, it is RECOMMENDED that a user agent inform the user of
any error with an appropriate amount of detail. This can help
developers debug issues by letting them know what has gone wrong
during
A range of security methods have been discussed. Please read the thread in
detail if this summary is too succinct:
The Security concern is that of the user agent hiding the mouse and not
letting it be used normally due to malicious code on a web site. Thus, user
agents must address this issue. No
So it sounds like we don't have a security model but we're hoping UA
implementors can dream one up by combining enough heuristics.
Adam
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
A range of security methods have been discussed. Please read the thread in
detail if
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
So it sounds like we don't have a security model but we're hoping UA
implementors can dream one up by combining enough heuristics.
A model which I suggested privately, and which I believe others have
suggested publicly, is
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
So it sounds like we don't have a security model but we're hoping UA
implementors can dream one up by combining enough heuristics.
A model which
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
So it sounds like we don't have a security model but we're hoping UA
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
- Mousemove event gains .deltaX .deltaY members, always valid, not just
during mouse lock.
Is this implementable?
First-person games typically implement delta mouse movement by hiding
the mouse cursor, warping the
On 06/20/2011 10:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Adam Barthw...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Adam Barthw...@adambarth.com wrote:
So it sounds like we don't
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Vincent Scheib sch...@google.com wrote:
- Mousemove event gains .deltaX .deltaY members, always valid, not just
during mouse lock.
Is this implementable?
First-person games typically
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 06/20/2011 10:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Adam Barthw...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com
2. During a user-initiated click,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
In a non-mouselock situation, mouse events stop being fired anyway
when the mouse goes outside of the window, so you don't have to worry
about the delta information.
Mouse events continue to be fired while you hold a
On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 06/20/2011 10:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Adam Barthw...@adambarth.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tab Atkins
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
The use-case is non-fullscreen games and similar, where you'd prefer
to lock the mouse as soon as the user clicks into the game. Minecraft
is the first example that pops
On 06/21/2011 01:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
The use-case is non-fullscreen games and similar, where you'd prefer
to lock the mouse as soon as the user clicks into the
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Given: Indexed Database API provides an alternative to Web Storage, the
relative severity of this issue, there is no plan to fix this issue, _this
is a Request for Comments to stop work on this spec and for [1] (or a
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 06/21/2011 01:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
On 06/21/2011 12:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
The use-case is non-fullscreen games and similar,
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal that work on this has
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
A model which I suggested privately, and which I believe others have
suggested publicly, is this:
1. While fullscreen is enabled, you can lock the mouse to the
fullscreened element without a prompt or persistent
So the proposal that seems to address the most concerns raised in this
thread would be to have postMessage() work like this:
postMessage({ object }, [ array ]);
...with it resulting in an event that contains both {object} and [array],
where everything in the array is transferred, and
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
On 06/21/2011 01:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Olli Pettayolli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
On 06/21/2011 12:25
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
On 06/21/2011 01:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011
On 6/20/11 6:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
I object to this. Web SQL Database was never interoperably
implemented, or adequately specified. Web Storage has been
implemented in every major browser for a few years, and tons of
content depends on it.
Note that there are currently major browsers
On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
concerns should affect web-exposed APIs in general
The APIs exposed to browser
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11836
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
46 matches
Mail list logo
