Re: [whatwg] Fakepath revisited

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: > Also, we could settle this. A sizable non-exhaustive list of problematic > sites could end this discussion soon. Just sayin'. Let's get biblical. Precisely how sizable is sufficient for us not to destroy Sodom ? The fact is that we wa

Re: [whatwg] HTML extension for system idle detection.

So, i don't have a place to stick this... In working on the n900, we've added features which generally break javascript activity if the user is not using the web page. We've chosen (or perhaps have been forced) to do this because battery life is generally considered more important than other prop

Re: [whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage

Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Chris Jones > wrote: I mean prevent the UA from affecting a script's execution. The cases I've thought of so far where we will probably have to break storage-mutex semantics are * clear private

Re: [whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Chris Jones wrote: > I mean prevent the UA from affecting a script's execution. The cases I've > thought of so far where we will probably have to break storage-mutex > semantics are > > * clear private data > * close tab > * quit UA > I think these could appea

Re: [whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage

Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chris Jones > wrote: And if the intention is to make scripts appear to run atomically, then I think there are better ways to specify that than storage mutex. That sounds good, how? My OP is my weak

Re: [whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for, WebSocket transfer protocol)

WenboZhu wrote: > While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is > also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol, > is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol. Wenbo, TCP/IP does not map well to OSI layer m

Re: [whatwg] Any chance for Double Buffering in the ?

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Marius Gundersen wrote: > I've been playing around with the canvas element, making a 3D engine. It > works, but is incredibly slow. Part of the reason is probably that the > browser renders the canvas everytime I draw something to it. In a 3D engine, > as well as a

Re: [whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chris Jones wrote: > And if the intention is to make scripts appear to run atomically, then I > think there are better ways to specify that than storage mutex. > That sounds good, how? My problem with storage mutex boils down to the fact that by the letter of >

Re: [whatwg] Fakepath revisited

Am Freitag, den 04.09.2009, 12:07 -0600 schrieb Alex Henrie: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Simon Pieters wrote: > > > It should be noted that both IE and Opera first tried to use just the > > filename, but independently found that it was incompatible with existing > > content. > > And Firefox