Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

2012-06-05 Thread Kinuko Yasuda
Based on the feedbacks I've updated the draft: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/quota/raw-file/tip/Overview.html - Got rid of string enum, instead introduced navigator.persistentStorage and navigator.temporaryStorage - Some interface name changes (just for IDL) QuotaStorageEnvironment -> StorageQuotaEnvi

Re: [whatwg] Fullscreen events dispatched to elements

2012-06-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
What do you do when element A goes fullscreen and then element B in the same document goes fullscreen on top of it? Do you fire a single fullscreenchange event at B? Or do you fire a fullscreenchange event at A and then at B? Or something else? Rob -- “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your

Re: Publish FPWD of Web Intents spec; deadline June 12

2012-06-05 Thread Greg Billock
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Deepanshu Gautam wrote: > Please refer to the email thread below > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012May/0054.html > > Where a consensus was reached to delete the following statement from the > Suggestions related text. > > "The User Ag

Re: [manifest] Is the Webapp Manifest spec ready for FPWD?

2012-06-05 Thread Arthur Barstow
On 5/30/12 2:36 PM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: What are people's thoughts on whether or not the Quota Management API spec is ready for First Public Working Draft (FPWD)? (Ooops, c&p error above: s/Quota Management/Webapp Manifest/) A "rule of thumb" for FPWD is that the ED's scope should cover

Re: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB LC draft

2012-06-05 Thread Jonas Sicking
I agree that they should be non-normative and that we should avoid using MAY etc in them. However we should make sure that somewhere there's a normative statement that says that implementations are allowed to make .indexedDB be null, or that .open always returns error for security and/or privacy re

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 06/05/2012 09:27 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > On 6/5/12 4:00 PM, "Mounir Lamouri" wrote: > >> On 05/31/2012 03:28 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >>> I'm probably missing something here, but notifications don't seem to be >>> going through a system- / browser-wide notification panel from which the >>> us

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-05 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:27:57 +0200, Tobie Langel wrote: Overall, I feel like writing down use cases and requirements would be something useful to do at this point. What do you think? Definitely. cheers -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français

Re: Proposal: Document.parse() [AKA: Implied Context Parsing]

2012-06-05 Thread Ian Hickson
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Adam Barth wrote: > > > > � http://www.hixie.ch/specs/e4h/strawman > > > > Who wants to be first to implement it? > > Doesn't e4h have the same security problems as e4x? As written it did, yes (specifically, if you can inject content into an XML file you can cause it to run J

RE: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB LC draft

2012-06-05 Thread Eliot Graff
Jonas, Do you agree with Tobie that Sections 6 & 7 should be non-normative? If so, I am happy to take care of this. Cheers. Eliot > -Original Message- > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:28 AM > To: Tobie Langel > Cc: public-webapps@w3.org >

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-05 Thread Tobie Langel
On 6/5/12 4:00 PM, "Mounir Lamouri" wrote: >On 05/31/2012 03:28 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> I'm probably missing something here, but notifications don't seem to be >> going through a system- / browser-wide notification panel from which the >> user can decide whether or not to navigate to an applic

[webcomponents] Progress Update

2012-06-05 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
Here's another installment of updates around Web Components: COMPONENTS INTRO (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/showdependencytree.cgi?id=14949&hide_resolved=1): * The document is now a FPWD: http://www.w3.org/TR/components-intro/ SHADOW DOM (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/showdependencytree.cgi?i

Re: [whatwg] Fullscreen events dispatched to elements

2012-06-05 Thread Jer Noble
On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Why should we standardize this if we always notify the document? Is > there a benefit to notifying both the element and the document? I think Vincent put forward a reasonable argument. The document is a finite, shared resource. Requiring

Re: [whatwg] Fullscreen events dispatched to elements

2012-06-05 Thread Vincent Scheib
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Jer Noble wrote: >> Actually, in WebKit, we explicitly also message the document from which the >> element was removed in that case.  I don't see why this behavior couldn't be >> standardized. > > Why sh

Re: Push API draft uploaded

2012-06-05 Thread Mounir Lamouri
On 05/31/2012 03:28 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > I'm probably missing something here, but notifications don't seem to be > going through a system- / browser-wide notification panel from which the > user can decide whether or not to navigate to an application. In other > words, it looks like we're cons

Re: Feedback on Quota Management API

2012-06-05 Thread Kinuko Yasuda
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > On 6/4/12 11:17 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> Finally, I feel it's slightly misleading to have an interface called > >> "info" which enables changes (through `requestQuota`). Wo

Re: Proposal: Document.parse() [AKA: Implied Context Parsing]

2012-06-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> If you mean http://code.google.com/p/doctype-mirror/wiki/ArticleE4XSecurity >> I guess that would depend on how we define it. > > By the way, it occurs to me that we can solve these security

[Bug 17321] Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under t

2012-06-05 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17321 Art Barstow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 17321] New: Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from un

2012-06-05 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17321 Summary: Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification chan

Re: [IME] WebIDL bugs

2012-06-05 Thread 坊野 博典
Greetings Dom, Thanks for your bug reports and sorry for my slow response. I will update this draft next week to apply them. (Unfortunately, I cannot afford to fix this draft this week.) Regards, Hironori Bono E-mail: hb...@google.com On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux w

Re: Proposal: Document.parse() [AKA: Implied Context Parsing]

2012-06-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > Doesn't e4h have the same security problems as e4x? If you mean http://code.google.com/p/doctype-mirror/wiki/ArticleE4XSecurity I guess that would depend on how we define it. A (bigger?) problem with E4H/H4E is that TC39 does not like it: http:

Re: Proposal: Document.parse() [AKA: Implied Context Parsing]

2012-06-05 Thread Adam Barth
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> Doesn't e4h have the same security problems as e4x? > > If you mean http://code.google.com/p/doctype-mirror/wiki/ArticleE4XSecurity > I guess that would depend on how we define it. By

Re: [whatwg] Fullscreen events dispatched to elements

2012-06-05 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Jer Noble wrote: > Actually, in WebKit, we explicitly also message the document from which the > element was removed in that case.  I don't see why this behavior couldn't be > standardized. Why should we standardize this if we always notify the document? Is ther

Re: [whatwg] Fullscreen events dispatched to elements

2012-06-05 Thread Olli Pettay
On 06/05/2012 09:31 AM, Jer Noble wrote: On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: If you implemented that proposal as-is then authors would usually need a listener on the document as well as the element, and as Chris pointed out, it's simpler to just always listen on the documen