ots
> who
> > wouldn't benefit.
>
>
> Yup. User agent sniffing definitely stinks.
>
> --
> Karl Dubost
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
>
>
I get a scents we should be worried about network congestion.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
not my list, so you
can do what you want - I just think that that's how you will see the
best results.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
a platform where we can make reasonable explanations to build up
higher-level proposals.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents, as they say.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
() seems good.
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
Yeah, libraries seem to have proven this out - unless there is a really
compelling reason to violate this, replaceWith seems to be what it should
be called. +1 to that.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
On Oct 5, 2014 7:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
So we should make a choice, as to whether we want developers to assume
they will always get permission (in which case it should reject upon
On Aug 23, 2014 2:11 PM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
On 22/08/14 19:29, Brian Kardell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com
wrote:
I still think that calling
give the hint that it is a stream that is consumed
without getting too crazy.
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
I still think that calling it bodyStream actually helps understanding
all you need and it's short/portable...
response.bodyStream.asJSON
Not wanting to start a giant bikeshed here but if you have a look at Jake's
Service Worker Examples as an early use of fetch and streams, it seems
clear that many developers would be surprised by behavior of not being
about to refer back to the response body. I'd like to suggest that this is
less
On Aug 12, 2014 9:07 AM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Not wanting to start a giant bikeshed here but if you have a look at
Jake's Service Worker Examples as an early use of fetch and streams, it
seems clear that many developers would be surprised by behavior of not
being about
On Aug 12, 2014 9:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
Not wanting to start a giant bikeshed here but if you have a look at
Jake's
Service Worker Examples as an early use of fetch and streams, it seems
On Aug 12, 2014 10:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way? . response is a completely read DOMString or Object or
whatever, not a Stream?
In that you cannot get back to the original response. You
On Aug 12, 2014 1:38 PM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com
wrote:
From: whatwg whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org on behalf of Brian Kardell
bkard...@gmail.com
console. log(o.responseText);
console. log(o.responseText);
This is why I've been advocating for asJSON() and friends
On Aug 29, 2013 1:21 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi Ryosuke,
Based on the feedback here, it doesn't sound like you are a huge fan
of the original proposal in this thread.
At this point, has any implementation come out in support of the
proposal in this thread as a preferred
fragments fetched from elsewhere... It would be difficult,
implausible to manage web components for those use cases in a
significant system/app by placing link references in head. It would
be really nice if we had some advice at least for handling that if not
a wholly spec'ed solution IMO.
--
Brian
standard), I'm curious as to the discrepancy... Can someone (Hixie
maybe) explain? Is it worth opening a bug or am I missing something
important?
1. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-link-element
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
the change isn't backward compatible (scripts using types
wouldn't work in
older browsers), I'd like to understand the need for the change.
-Olli
--
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
On Mar 12, 2013 12:06 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Brian Kardell bkard...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to mention this the other day - it works inter-operably
today,
so it seems like you probably don't want to break that. Simultaneously
On Mar 11, 2013 8:41 PM, Alex Russell slightly...@google.com wrote:
Hi all,
I had a moment today while trying to use Mutation Observers where it
wasn't
clear to me what bits of the configuration passed to observe() are
required
and which are configuration about required values. In
On Sep 17, 2012 8:22 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Brian Kardell wrote:
Ian, you hit the nail on the head with the text section that raised the
issue but I still am not entirely sure that I understand... Doesn't this
imply that in a case like *.wordpress.com
Cross posted from w3c list..
I have searched the archives and been unable to resolve this to a great
answer and I just want to make sure that my understanding is correct lest I
have to unwind things later as someone has recently made me second guess
what I thought was a logical understanding of
On Sep 17, 2012 5:22 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Brian Kardell wrote:
Essentially, x.wordpress.com and y.wordpress.com both allocate and use
space - no problem, right? Access is subject to the browsers -general-
[same-origin policy], (leaving aside
23 matches
Mail list logo
