On 09/06/2012 09:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 09/06/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>>
On 09/06/2012 09:30 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
On 09/06/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Jonas Sicking w
On 09/06/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi wrote:
On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The problem with a "Only allow bloc
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM, b...@pettay.fi wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 08:31 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The problem with a "Only allow blocking on children, except
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The problem with a "Only allow blocking on children, except that
>> window can't block on its children" is that you can never block on a
>> computation which is implemented in the mai
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> The problem with a "Only allow blocking on children, except that
> window can't block on its children" is that you can never block on a
> computation which is implemented in the main thread. I think that cuts
> out some major use cases since
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> [Constructor]
> interface MessageChannel {
> readonly attribute MessagePortSyncSide syncPort;
> readonly attribute MessagePortAsyncSide asyncPort;
> };
This should of course say SyncMessageChannel.
/ Jonas
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Importantly, the sending side
>> doesn't have to know whether the receiving side is using a sync API to
>> receive it or not--in other words, that information doesn't have to be part
>> of the user's messaging protocol.
>
> I agree that this
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
> David Grogan wrote:
>
>> Odin wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, there's a much bigger chance of developers listening to error on
>>> the opening page, rather than blocked.
>>
>>
>> +1. Replacing "blocked" event with an "error" event named BlockedError
Art Barstow, Thank you for indicating the www-t...@w3.org mailing list. I have
forwarded my email to that mailing list. Kind regards, Adam Sobieski> Date:
Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:47:21 -0400
> From: art.bars...@nokia.com
> To: adamsobie...@hotmail.com
> CC: public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Please d
David Grogan wrote:
Odin wrote:
Also, there's a much bigger chance of developers listening to error on
the opening page, rather than blocked.
+1. Replacing "blocked" event with an "error" event named BlockedError
would be an improvement.
I did this. Proposed patch to the spec is here:
On 9/5/12 11:16 AM, ext Adam Sobieski wrote:
Web Applications Working Group,
The subject matter of this mail list is the WG's specifications. Please
use this list accordingly.
If anyone wants to reply to Adam's e-mail, please use some other mail
list (such as www-t...@w3.org).
-Thanks, AB
Web Applications Working Group,
Greetings. In a 2010 Scientific American article, Tim Berners-Lee indicated
some concerns about social networking websites. Concerns were expressed about
social networking websites which were described as "walled gardens". Concerns
indicated included that socia
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The current draft of XHR2 doesn't allow clients to set the UA header.
>
Presumably, by "clients" you mean client-side script, and not "the [client]
implementation of the UA".
>
> That's unfortunate, because part of the intent of the UA
Hi all,
The time of my quarterly release of “Standards for Web
Applications on Mobile” has come again; the
August 2012 edition of the document is now available at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/08/mobile-web-app-state/
I have also created a URI where the latest version of that document will
be available
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
>>...
>>
>> But I'm also not very worried about small diff
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> We can't generically block on children since we can't let the main
>> window block on a child. That would effectively permit synchronous IO
>> from the main thread which is not someth
18 matches
Mail list logo
