Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:54:39 -0600, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: As someone who occasionally has to look up if the 3rd argument to XMLHttpRequest.open() means sync or async, I agree with Tab. And that's something I've been using for years. Forget

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Mike Taylor wrote: > As someone who occasionally has to look up if the 3rd argument to > XMLHttpRequest.open() means sync or async, I agree with Tab. And that's > something I've been using for years. Forget about synthetic keyboard events > [1]: > > event.initKey

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:23:46 -0600, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: That's not necessary. There are situations when optional arguments make sense. They should be avoided, though, when you expect that *future* optional arguments will have nothing

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > That said, I sympathize that the overhead of creating an object or needing > to do a string compare just for a boolean is kind of sucky. > I'd expect implementations to mostly optimize away string comparisons with string interning, though.

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. > wrote: >> As I argued in >> , >> we should absolutely *not* be adding more boolean arguments to the >> platform.  They

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> As I argued in < >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1520.html>, >> we should absolutely *not* be adding more boolean arguments to the >> platform. The

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On 1/26/12 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: 2. URL.createObjectURL now takes an optional boolean, following discussions on the listserv [oneTimeOnly]. As I argued in

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > As I argued in < > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1520.html>, > we should absolutely *not* be adding more boolean arguments to the > platform. They should be exposed as boolean properties in an > dictionary.

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Arun Ranganathan > wrote: >> 2. URL.createObjectURL now takes an optional boolean, following discussions >> on the listserv [oneTimeOnly]. > > As I argued in >

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > 2. URL.createObjectURL now takes an optional boolean, following discussions > on the listserv [oneTimeOnly]. As I argued in , we should absolutely *not* be adding

Re: [File API] Draft for Review

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > 2. URL.createObjectURL now takes an optional boolean, following > discussions on the listserv [oneTimeOnly]. > These questions weren't addressed: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1525.html The only response t

Re: Web Forms 2 Repetition Model?please reinstate on specification

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Matthew Slyman wrote: > Quoting Ian Hickson : > > > > We took it out because it was just far too complicated a solution to > > solve far too narrow a set of use cases. > > > > However, there is a lot of ongoing work in this area of research, > > especially currently in the

[File API] Draft for Review

Greetings public-webapps, I'd like to encourage some review of File API: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ You can send comments to this listserv, or file a bug, since this spec. now has a Bugzilla component. Here are some notable changes: 1. Blob is now constructable, following discu

RE: StreamBuilder threshold

Can you please clarify what scenario you are looking at regarding multiple consumers? When designing the StreamBuilder API, we looked at it as a more primitive API which other abstractions (such as multiple consumers) can be built upon. If you can please let me know what issue you're trying to

RE: [indexeddb] Creating transactions inside the oncomplete handler of a VERSION_CHANGE transaction

It sounds like we're all in sync with this new behavior. These are the various ways in which I see a developer getting a handle to the database object in order to call transaction(): 1. Keeping a global reference around after one of the open method handlers is executed (i.e. onupgradeneeded or

Re: [indexeddb] Creating transactions inside the oncomplete handler of a VERSION_CHANGE transaction

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Israel Hilerio > wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Israel Hilerio > >> wrote: > >> > Should we allow the creation of READ_ONLY or

[Bug 15732] New: Specify that non-editable content shouldn't be focusable

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15732 Summary: Specify that non-editable content shouldn't be focusable Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Seve

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:47:45 +0100, Glen Shires wrote: Art, Charles, We are very pleased to see the positive responses to the CfC. Me too. FWIW Opera is happy to have this work done. We think it would ideally be a joint deliverable (despite the fact that we don't like those in general) be