I think an exception should be thrown when ApplicationCache add/
remove is called with invalid URLs.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by "invalid"?
URL not found in the cache?
Malformed URL?
Something else?
Geoff
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ojan Vafai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMO, the tradeoff is still worth it, though. And in the future, with
>> something like Hixie's messaging proposal, this problem will go away
>> (because you'll have stateful objects that represent a conversation).
>
> I don't
I'm forwarding this feedback to [EMAIL PROTECTED] because the mouse
wheel event stuff is being developed there instead of the WHATWG.
WebAPI WG: Please acknowledge receipt of this feedback and let the people
below (cc'ed) know how their feedback is handled. Thanks!
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Chris G
Hi,
I think an exception should be thrown when ApplicationCache add/remove
is called with invalid URLs. Something like
"If uri is not valid, raise an SYNTAX_ERR exception and abort these
steps."
Anders
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> - Processing a reply synchronously is awkward in any case, since you need
>> a callback.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this argument, I actually come to the opposite
> conclusion.
>
> Say that a page
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Kasting wrote:
>
>> I think the argument assumed you were communicating with a single frame in
>> the common case, in which case the current API is more awkward than one in
>> which the postMessage() call itself retu
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:06:46 +0200, Dan Brickley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
Erm, 'For the "Status" section to be changed to "Accepted", the proposed
keyword must have been through the Microformats process, and been
approved by the Microformats com
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:37:30 +0200, Phil Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do we need for HTML 5?
Just the link/rel element. A POWDER link will be something like
If the POWDER WG defines the "powder" relationship and adds "powder"
to the following Wiki page as
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:37:30 +0200, Phil Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do we need for HTML 5?
Just the link/rel element. A POWDER link will be something like
If the POWDER WG defines the "powder" relationship and adds "powder" to
the following Wiki page as proposal that should be
Marco, thanks for raising this and thanks to Dan Bri for altering me to
your question.
I'm CTO at the Family Online Safety Institute [1] which includes ICRA
and chair of the POWDER WG [2] so I'm probably reasonably well placed to
answer your question.
As of today, PICS remains a W3C Recommen
and were discussed by various people in various threads in
over the past few years.
I haven't changed anything in the spec in response to these suggestions.
As discussed below, the elements aren't used much. They are useful to some
extent and not really causing any harm, but they aren't used
11 matches
Mail list logo
