On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:44:44 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
There is one other problem noted by sicking on the WHATWG list. Namely
that Content-Type can also be set by the user agent. E.g. based on the
File object passed to the send() method in XMLHttpRequest. So I think I
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:12:57 +0100, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to mention the 1/n+1 splitting countermeasure in my
response.
With that said, this isn't TLS 1.1, but rather a specific, more
backwards-compatible countermeasure. It's fine for the security
considerations
TL;DR: JC and Leonard are right.
Pointing to a moving target makes any statement about conformance pretty
much unusable in the real world. Which is significantly worse than having
a statement of conformance to something known to contain errors and bugs.
Browsers don't implement living
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:12:57 +0100, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to mention the 1/n+1 splitting countermeasure in my
response.
With that said, this isn't TLS 1.1, but rather a specific, more
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:06:28 +0100, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Surely this should be patched in the base
specification rather than in every API that interacts with it. I do not
want to make the life of the guy
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:06:28 +0100, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Surely this should be patched in the base
specification rather than
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:55:40 +0100, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
That isn't to say that the browser stacks aren't adding 1/n+1
splitting. NSS, for instance, has such a fix. However, I don't think
there's anything to do from a TLS standards perspective.
What I would like is a standard
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:55:40 +0100, Eric Rescorla e...@rtfm.com wrote:
That isn't to say that the browser stacks aren't adding 1/n+1
splitting. NSS, for instance, has such a fix. However, I don't think
there's anything
Happy Holidays!
In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
the Shadow DOM Specification:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
It's not quite a Christmas miracle, more like that extra unlabeled
gift box you found in the drapes while
Hi Dimitri,
You wrote:
In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
the Shadow DOM Specification:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
Awesome. Thanks for writing this up! Obviously, I'll have to read this
more closely while hiding
On 12/20/11 4:49 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
#player::controls
I'm worried that users may stomp all over the CSS WG's ability to mint
future pseudo-element names. I'd rather use a functional syntax to
distinguish between custom, user-defined pseudo-elements and
engine-supplied, CSS
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.com wrote:
Hi Dimitri,
You wrote:
In the joyous spirit of sharing, I present you with a first draft of
the Shadow DOM Specification:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html
Awesome. Thanks for
Yes, I had almost the same thought, though why not just require a prefix?
I also think some examples actually showing some handling of events and use
of css would be really helpful here... The upper boundary for css vs
inheritance I think would be made especially easier to understand with a
good
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15292
Summary: HTTP/1.1 101 WebSocket Protocol Handshake Upgrade:
WebSocket Connection: Upgrade Sec-WebSocket-Origin:
http://example.com Sec-WebSocket-Location:
14 matches
Mail list logo
