I agree. Using the browser to access local-exposed HTTP resources is an
important way to bridge the native/mobile gap. User permission (pre-arranged,
persistent, or session-based) can be explicitly required if needed, but blanket
prohibition on intra-device communication via HTTP is too blunt-fo
This is one of those semantics rabbit-holes that I request we avoid. The term
webapp is well-known (>5m hits on google in the common forms “webapp” “web
app”, etc).
In comparison, “web page” is probably a more amorphous and anachronistic term
and provides less valuable context for the user/devel
I agree. I'll help get this out the door asap, likely next week.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | Service Standards | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 5:44 AM
To: Michael van Ouwerkerk; Bryan Sullivan; EDUARDO FULLEA CAR
Hi all,
I have updated the PushAPI ED for a variety of recent discussions including
many of the TAG review comments. The new ED is at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html. This ED will be the basis
for discussions at the F2F, which I will be dialing into.
Here is a summary of th
I will attend the meeting remotely. I assume there will be remote participation
support.
Re the Push API, we are working on an ED for TAG feedback and other input from
browser vendors. An updated ED will be provided before the meeting.
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art
One of the other changes in progress is to include service workers on the
design of the API. I don't know if that replaces system messages in total but
the necessary changes will be considered when a new draft is submitted.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:40 PM, "Arthur Barstow"
Sure, but this is only a reflection of the semantic space of the English
language. Many things can be source of confusion. Understanding context is the
responsibility of the reader. We will do what we can to provide clarifying
guidance on the use of terms, but "Push Message" is a well-establishe
Sure, we will look out for additional potentially confusing term overlap as
suggested.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:38 PM, "Michael van Ouwerkerk"
mailto:mvanouwerk...@google.com>> wrote:
I think that's a great suggestion Jeffrey.
Specifically, I would like to avoid confusing
I agree, Push Message is the term that is used in other standards e.g. OMA
Push. The use of the term notification was a reflection of the current
simplified API design which provides only a trigger to the application, as a
"notification" that some data is available at the server. As we consider
Thanks for the comments, Tobie. I will provide an update draft proposal soon to
address them.
Note also that I'm preparing a proposal to actually include a message body, and
other enhancements to the current API to broaden support among browsers. I
should have a draft for review in the next coup
Hi Webapps,
Eduardo and I have uploaded a new ED of the Push API at
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/tip/index.html.
This incorporates a variety of changes based upon comments received since the
last ED. See https://github.com/telefonicaid/WebAPISpecs/commits/develop/Push
for details on th
Update: my comments were referring to the File API, not the IndexedDB API - I
mistook the context of this thread (somehow) to be about the File API...
nevermind!
-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Jonas Sicking; Arthur Barstow
Cc
Comments below.
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 8:56 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: pira...@gmail.com; Webapps WG
Subject: Re: Files on IndexedDB
Hi Art,
Actually, the response in [2] says that we should clarify in the spec
that
Thanks for starting this thread, Arnaud. I have some responses below, and look
forward to discussions on these topics.
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: arnaud.br...@orange.com [mailto:arnaud.br...@orange.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:05 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject:
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:44 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Charles Pritchard; pira...@gmail.com; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem events
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:25 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Charles Pritchard; pira...@gmail.com; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem events
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> F
From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:ch...@jumis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:08 PM
To: pira...@gmail.com
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem events
We didn't come to much of a resolution.
It was suggested that the current behavior in browsers was incorrect; that the
File should
Thanks for the clarifications - we support it.
And I will try to do less multitasking at F2F's!
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:47 AM
To: public-webapps WG; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Su
Chaals,
Overall, I think we support this proposal but have some questions I would like
to get clarifications on:
Maybe I don't recall but is SysApps asking Webapps to take the manifest aspect?
Or is this something Webapps thinks is its right because of the prior focus on
Widgets packaging? I d
Perhaps this problem indicates a real limitation in the same-origin policy as
root for browser data. In a somewhat related point at TPAC for example I
pointed out that the value of using IndexedDB for media storage - e.g. GBs of
music or videos - will be severely limited if I can't switch my web
> -Original Message-
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:46 AM
> To: ext Eric U; Doug Schepers
> Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: FileSystem compromise spec
>
> On 11/15/12 7:39 PM, ext Eric U wrote:
> > As discussed
; To: public-weba...@w3c.org; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA
> Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of Push API; deadline October 12
>
> On 10/5/12 7:38 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > The Push API Editors would like to publish a First Public Working
> > Draft of their spec
> -Original Message-
> From: Olli Pettay [mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:48 AM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
> Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Glenn Maynard; Eric U; public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System
t; Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:59 AM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
> Cc: public-weba...@w3c.org
> Subject: [push-api] Moving Push API to FPWD [Was: Re: [admin] Publishing
> specs before TPAC: CfC start deadline is Oct 15]
>
> On 9/26/12 1:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
Hi Art,
We've previously called for any comments to the current Push API draft [1], and
would like to promote it to FPWD before TPAC. We haven't received any
substantive comments as far as I know, which tells me that it could be in good
shape for publication. With the addition of Telefonica (Ed
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:59 PM
To: Glenn Maynard
Cc: Eric U; o...@pettay.fi; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?
Hi Glenn,
I read over your points. But I don't think they would ch
What are the other proposals that handle the same use cases?
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Sep 18, 2012, at 6:07 PM, "Olli Pettay" wrote:
Hi all,
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API
from Recommendation track to Note. Mainly because the API hasn't been widel
For the use cases of media storage for offline use perhaps (an important use
case), but there are broader use cases necessary for the growth of Webapps
which need to manage their own arbitrary storage resources outside the
browser-managed space. Until this is supported, the web will remain a thi
Hi Art,
Can you update the Webapps Publication Status page to add Eduardo as co-editor
of the Push API draft?
We are looking forward to feedback on this update, with the goal of getting to
FPWD by TPAC if possible.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
+
From: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA
Date: Wed, 22 Aug
Comment inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Mounir Lamouri; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 6/5/12 4:00 PM, "Mounir Lamouri" wrote:
>On 05/31/2012 03:28 PM,
Response inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:06 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; ife...@google.com; Karl Dubost
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. & Top-posting
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Tobie Langel [mailto:to...@fb.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:29 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 5/30/12 11:14 AM, "Mounir Lamouri" wrote:
>>> * I guess the idea of |onmessage|
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:15 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 05/29/2012 06:13 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> * I wonder if
Comment inline.
From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) [mailto:ife...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:42 AM
To: Karl Dubost
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [admin] Mail List Policy, Usage, Etiquette, etc. & Top-posting
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 29 mai 2012 à 12:59, Ia
I support the FPWD publication.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:40 AM
To: ext Kinuko Yasuda; WebApps WG
Subject: Is Quota Management API ready for First Public Working Draft?
Hi Kinuko, All - wh
Responses inline.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:06 AM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 05/26/2012 05:06 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> * As far as I understand
04:00 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> [...] I am following the Mozilla lead on registering the intent to receive
> messages, [...].
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the proposal on the wiki page is
proposing to use intents?
--
Mounir
ent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:12 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Anant Narayanan; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest
Format and Management APIs
On 27/05/2012 12:36, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> Re "At install time or when I am brow
rayanan
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest
Format and Management APIs
On 26 May 2012, at 18:32, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> On 05/25/2012 09:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday, Ma
Thanks for the comments. Some responses added as
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 3:17 PM
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Push API draft uploaded
On 05/24/2012 09:14 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote
il...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Anant Narayanan; public-webapps WG;
public-webappst...@w3.org
Subject: Re: [manifest] screen sizes, Re: Review of Web Application Manifest
Format and Management APIs
On 25 May 2012, at 17:25, Marcos Cac
Marcos,
Re "I thought we had stopped the whole designing for particular screen sizes,
etc. a long time ago.", that may be the still-closely-held goal, but the
reality is that designing for multiple screen sizes (and pixel densities) is
still far from simple. Even with all the tools that have b
age is received, the user agent must
deliver the message data via the onmessage handler, if possible. If delivery is
not possible, the user agent may discard the message, or may queue it for later
delivery."
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA [
rly not as simple as the Mozilla
proposal). Service lifecycle management, of which registration is a facet, can
hopefully be layered above the API for the most part.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 24, 2012, at 9:33 AM, "Charles Pritchard" wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 7:08 AM, SULLIVAN,
n't have a strong opinion either way.
Latest version is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Ms2ger [mailto:ms2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:37 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-webapps
Subjec
Sorry, cut & paste error: the spec is at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:02 AM
To: 'Ms2ger'
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: RE: Push API draft uploaded
27;s a function I
borrowed from EventSource.
Latest version is at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.htm
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Ms2ger [mailto:ms2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:33 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: public-webapps
Subjec
Thanks to the inestimable help of the W3C staff I am now plugged into the
mercurial mainline and have uploaded the first stab at the Push API
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/push/raw-file/default/index.html
I incorporated Mozilla's client API ideas in
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Notifications/Push/A
hanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 13, 2012, at 7:04 PM, "Anant Narayanan" wrote:
> Hi Sullivan,
>
> Thanks for your comments, some responses inline:
>
> On 5/13/2012 1:11 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> 1) Re "version: A string that represents the version of t
Hi Anant,
Thanks for the proposal. It's good to see this moving forward, following the
workshop we had last year after TPAC.
Some initial comments:
1) Re "version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The
User-Agent does not interpret this value in any way and is opaque to e
At least in the widget model, the manifest (including feature elements)
provides a means of disclosure to the user about the APIs that the app wants to
access. Of course if one assumes that users are brainless click-happy
automatons then such disclosures are useless, but at that end of the extre
I like the idea. This would be useful for various things, especially if we
could integrate the discovery and selection of this feature (the local proxy
Web service) through Web Intents.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 4, 2012, at 6:48 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:12 A
Marcos,
I think it would be great to update the document. While in the Webapps F2F
there were some good ideas also floated on supplemental metadata systems (e.g.
as used in WHATWG for HTML5) that don't require editors to do anything, IMO we
should also consider tooling that helps editors add in
Hi Robin,
I'm starting to edit the Push API spec per the Webapps meeting in progress:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/May2012F2FMeeting ("Server-Sent Events
"extended to work with other push notification schemes such as Push SMS"").
Some questions on the ReSpec biblio:
* Do you have
I support the LCWD publication.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:44 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish LCWD of Server-sent Events; deadline April 23
The Server-sent Events spec has thre
Art,
I support the publication as PR.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:50 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish Proposed Recommendation of Widget Interface; deadline
April 26
Now that t
I support the publication as a CR.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:45 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of Web Workers; deadline April 11
During the comment period for the March 13 LCW
I support the publication as a CR.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 7:07 AM
To: public-webapps
Subject: CfC: publish Candidate Recommendation of HTML5 Web Messaging; deadline
April 11
During the comment period for the Mar
ackground I think we have a good foundation to resolve the questions you noted.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:ka...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:04 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Cc: Ian Hickson; Stefan Hakansson LK; public-webapps@w3.org
S
the Webapp *is* running, it's within the scope of what we have
discussed earlier as SSE extensions (and not technically a "wakeup").
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 4:39 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
C
Ian,
Stefan may respond with more detail, but the use cases we submitted for WebRTC
consideration describe this as the ability to invoke an application and pass an
event to it, whether it is running (or not) at the time of the event reception
by the device. By running I mean that the app, or it
What WebRTC needs is related to the use cases I submitted for the Webapps
charter update, for a Push API (based upon the concept presented at TPAC).
Without presuming any implementation details at this point (even whether
EventSource as it stands will fulfill this), we need the ability of Webap
c...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:30 AM
To: gaut...@opera.com; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it
to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)
On 8/10/10
urposes it is supported.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:51 PM
To: Jonas Sicking; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [XHR] Status
document.getElementById("text").innerHTML = "loadFile: "
+ url + "File should appear below";
extref.setAttribute('src', encurl);
}
}
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Jonas
van Kesteren [mailto:ann...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:49 PM
To: Jonas Sicking; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [XHR] Status Update
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:37:25 +0200, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
wrote:
> Are you saying that it should not be possible no
---
From: marc...@opera.com [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:51 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: RE: ACTION-568: Create an alternative mechanism for openURL andsend it
to the mail list (Web Applications Working Group)
Quoting
Anne,
Are you saying that it should not be possible now (with XHR L1) to
receive HTML files via XHR ("Receiving HTML documents would indeed be a
newish feature ") ?
This does actually work for me in XHR L1, so I'm unclear about what you
mean below.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original
Marcos,
That method works for well-know URI schemes except for http:// and https://.
The openURL() method would have launched the browser for those schemes, and we
still need a method to do that.
I was not able to attend the last week's call and was not aware there was a
plan to remove the ope
ivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Eric Uhrhane [mailto:er...@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:42 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: Transferring File* t
ryFilesystem are quite useful also, and may support the
majority of use cases anyway.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
From: Mike Clement [mailto:mi...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:40 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w
T
From: Mike Clement [mailto:mi...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:42 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux
Hi,
Am I corre
ly secure models for Web application access to device resources
will be defined as APIs.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:53 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Robin Berjon; public-d
cking.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:48 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: a...@mozilla.com; Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian
Fette; Web Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: Transferring File* to WebApps - redux
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW
options to the user-centric/control
paradigms of the past.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ranganathan [mailto:a...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:48 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Robin Berjon; public-device-a...@w3.org; Ian Fett
I will not be able to attend today's call.
Bryan | AT&T
Hi all,
This is a question for both the Webapps Widgets and Web API followers.
In testing widget engine rendering of plain text files as the source of
an iframe, I came across a problem I need your input on. It appears that
when a widget retrieves a file from the widget package using XHR *OR* as
n Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Charles Pritchard [mailto:ch...@jumis.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:31 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Doug Schepers; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Event handlers - Pointer Devices
`
> On the main (or more useful) poin
hed to it.
I'd like to see some clearer distinction between the charters on these points.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schep...@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:08 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Charles Pritchard;
This might be better discussed by the DAP group, as it's clearly a
"device API" topic.
Also it would be interesting to hear from Apple and Wacom (without
unnecessary details at this point), what areas of touch interface
capabilities would be problematic for W3C to create API's for, from an
IPR per
p;T
-Original Message-
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 6:52 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [EventSource] Comments to the current draft
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
>
> Re "T
Maciej,
Security is important in DAP, and should be considered carefully in the context
of each API and its use cases. There is no "one size fits all" solution to
security, and that includes approaches based solely upon explicit user action
(including explicitly expressed permission via dialog
:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:00 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: Marcos Caceres; WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec
On Nov 9, 2009, at 20:22 , SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
> (1) we need to be specific about which API's / resource types
009 3:57 AM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Marcos Caceres; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW); WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec
On Nov 12, 2009, at 16:36 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> I understand that too many details may not work or be an obstacle in the
> adoption.
> However, I derive
Test 2: If the widget engine does not allow external image
references, no image will
be shown below:
http://dev.opera.com/img/logo-beta.gif"/>
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc..
mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:30 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WARP] Comments to WARP spec
SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) wrote:
> Marcos,
> I agree there is an assumption behind the approach I proposed, which I also
> b
b security model, so we need
to fix the element definition somehow.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:36 AM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: WebApps WG
Subject: Re: [WAR
o indicate which types of references
should be allowed for the domain
My preference would be (1), but I proposed the use of "tag=" to illustrate how
(2) might work.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Se
Here are the comments I had to the WARP spec in the Webapps/DAP joint
meeting:
1) Does "*" grant/require either HTTP or HTTPS as schemes? It would be
better to allow "https://*/"; or "http://*/"; distinctly since some
applications may not be allowed by policy to access specific sources
using non-s
Hi all,
Here are some comments / questions for clarification re the current
Server Sent Events draft
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-eventsource-20091029/). If there is time
next week, and these points are not addressed by email before then, I
would appreciate the opportunity to have a F2F discussio
Hi Charles,
I have an agenda item for the AOB section or wherever it can fit. I will be
spending most of the time with DAP and part with Webapps (Widgets), but will
try to balance the agendas to be in the APIs meeting as much as possible.
The basic question I have is what is the relationship of
Regrets, I have a conflicting meeting.
Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
Hi Art,
My action http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/357 can be closed. The
table that was requested was provided in Widgets 1.0: Window Modes and Media
Query Extensions http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-wm/Overview.src.html. I
didn't do it, but it does meet the original request relat
Title: Questions on A&E spec
Here are a couple of potentially easy questions on the Widgets 1.0: APIs and Events spec:
5.15 The openURL() Method
Does "the appropriate protocol handler" mean an external application (e.g. browser for http://) is invoked, or can the "handler" be the widget u
Title: Response to ACTION-348
Here is my input re my action for use cases to the WARP spec (http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/348)
Use cases for WARP spec related to the following access element attributes (add two new attributes):
required: Optional.
- A boolean attribut
ssage-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marc...@opera.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:30 AM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: Robin Berjon; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] Comments to element text
I'm still not convinced, can you give me a real life example? Or point
me to an AppStore that makes us
cace...@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Marcos Caceres
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Robin Berjon
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] Comments to element text
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> On Apr
gards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:54 AM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] Comments to element text
Hi Bryan,
On Apr 30, 2009, at 16:06 , Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
> H
Title: [widgets] Comments to element text
Here are a couple of suggestions for the element (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-access-element):
Attributes
(add two new attributes)
required: Optional.
A boolean attribute that indicates whether or not this resource is essential to th
Title: June F2F
Art,
Re the June F2F (June 9-11 in London; host is Vodafone), is there any chance this could be moved up to June 8-10? There is an OMTP meeting in London the week before, so I will be there, and plan to also attend the Webapps meeting. It would be better for me for the Webapp
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
