On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:43:15 +0200, Adrian Bateman
wrote:
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:24 PM, James Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky
wrote:
> > Note that there are currently major browsers that do not
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:24 PM, James Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > > Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the spec
> > > as
> > > currently written and have
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the spec
> as
> > currently written and have explicitly said that they have no plans to do
> so.
>
> If browsers can ag
A proposal,
Le 22 juin 2011 à 13:50, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
> participants: Candidate Recommendations require Director's approval and the
> decision to publish a Recommendation is subject to feedback from the entire
> W3C Membership (WebApps includes only 24 of the 325 W3C Members).
We usuall
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the spec as
> currently written and have explicitly said that they have no plans to do so.
If browsers can agree on what to implement, update the spec to reflect
that. If they
On 6/22/11 1:50 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Naturally, some will disagree with this view,
especially given the broad implementation of this spec.
But said implementations don't implement the storage mutex...
-Boris
On Jun/20/2011 6:37 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal tha
On 6/21/11 11:26 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
I agree that the focus should be the Web, but if other things benefit
from the security and design decisions, all the better, no?
Sure. I just don't think we should be doing things that are targeted
only at non-web situations.
The above still appl
Le 21 juin 2011 à 10:33, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
> That doesn't mean we should be designing web APIs around the needs of
> extensions. In particular, extensions can, and often do, have access to APIs
> that are not exposed to web pages and that can be used to serve whatever
> non-Web needs th
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/21/11 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Seems your idea of "the web platform" is very idiosyncratic and
>> limited. It almost sounds like you are advocating "a modern web
>> browser with no extensions installed is the Web platform" o
On 6/21/11 10:25 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Seems your idea of "the web platform" is very idiosyncratic and
limited. It almost sounds like you are advocating "a modern web
browser with no extensions installed is the Web platform" or "it's not
in the HTML/WAHTWG spec, so it's not the Web platform".
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/21/11 2:00 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
>>>
>>> I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
>>> concerns should
On 6/21/11 2:00 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
concerns should affect web-exposed APIs in general
your claims seem pretty groundless giv
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Andres Riofrio wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>
>>> Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
>>> web platform.
>>
>> I strongly object to both this clai
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
>> web platform.
>
> I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
> concerns should affect web-
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
>> web platform.
>>
>
> I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
> concerns should affect w
On 6/20/11 8:20 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the
web platform.
I strongly object to both this claim and the idea that browser extension
concerns should affect web-exposed APIs in general
The APIs exposed to browser extension
On 6/20/11 6:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
I object to this. Web SQL Database was never interoperably
implemented, or adequately specified. Web Storage has been
implemented in every major browser for a few years, and tons of
content depends on it.
Note that there are currently major browsers tha
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
> > wrote:
> > > As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
> > > normative; it's just a signal that work on this has ended.
> >
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Given: Indexed Database API provides an alternative to Web Storage, the
> relative severity of this issue, there is no plan to fix this issue, _this
> is a Request for Comments to stop work on this spec and for [1] (or a
> similar fix to bug
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Marcos Caceres
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
>>> wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and ple
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27 at
>>> the latest.
>>
>> I don't think
On 2011-06-20 13:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal that work on this has ended.
1) You do not get patent policy protection. 2) The work has not e
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:54:12 +0200, Julian Reschke
wrote:
As recently discussed in the HTMLWG -- you can have Note that is
normative; it's just a signal that work on this has ended.
1) You do not get patent policy protection. 2) The work has not ended if
the feature is still part of the we
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
> wrote:
>>
>> Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27 at
>> the latest.
>
> I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed from browsers it is part
>
On 2011-06-20 13:11, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27
at the latest.
I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed from browsers it is
part of the web platform and as
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27 at
the latest.
I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed from browsers it is
part of the web platform and as such requires normative documentation.
-
27 matches
Mail list logo
