On 2/1/11 11:47 AM, Adam de Boor wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Patrick Mueller wrote:
On 8/12/10 6:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010, Patrick Mueller wrote:
I've been playing with application cache for a while now
.
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
On 8/12/10 6:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010, Patrick Mueller wrote:
I've been playing with application cache for a while now, and found the
diagnostic information available to be sorely lacking.
For example, to diagnose user-land errors that occur when using
appcache
might be the best thing to do for all three of the mechanisms I
suggested - extend the events used with a new attribute of type
ApplicationCacheStatus, and add a new attribute to ApplicationCache
of type ApplicationCacheStatus, etc.
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
and totalItems. These attributes might be
better suited to be used rather than the total and loaded attributes.
Same for step 18, which indicates a final ProgressEvent should be sent
at the completion of the cache download process.
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
Patrick Mueller wrote:
Michael Nordman wrote:
I'm confused about the manual loading of the script into the context? The
original proposal called for providing a script url when
creating/connecting
to an instance of a global-script... in which case each client page
expresses something more
Patrick Mueller wrote:
Time to work on some examples. This would relatively easy to prototype
in something like Rhino (or my nitro_pie python wrapper for
JavaScriptCore), at least API wise, so we could see what the user-land
code would look like, and see it run.
I developed a simulator
call ClassLoader
hell.
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
();
context.onload = function () {...}
context.onerror = function () {...}
context.load('foo.js');
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
available? In the current scenario with a no-arg
constructor, what happens when I invoke it again? If it should return
the same object, then don't use a constructor, use a plain old function
- SharedScope.getCurrent().
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
more
of an opt-out. And I don't have a use case for I don't want to share,
nor could I claim that even if they didn't want to, it would be unsafe
if they did anyway (ie, it might be safe even if they didn't want to
share). Just thinking aloud.
--
Patrick Mueller - http://muellerware.org
?
The load() method is very similar to the worker loadScript() (or
whatever) function. Perhaps we should combine them into one API, that
allows sync or async in a worker, but only allows async in a
GlobalScript. Or at least advises against use of sync.
--
Patrick Mueller - http
Michael Nordman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Patrick Mueller pmue...@muellerware.orgwrote:
Can I create additional GlobalScript's from within an existing
GlobalScript?
That's a good question...
(just having fun... oh the tangled web we weave;)
I'm not sure any has thought thru
need a lot of head shaping
around asynchronous message sending?
Futher question would be whether there are two issues: dealing with
asynchronous messages, and direct DOM API. If we could get over the
hurdle of the async, do we still need the direct DOM API?
--
Patrick Mueller - http
such a clip seamlessly.
It makes me wonder what the use of having the seamful looping actually
is, besides of course annoying people. :-)
--
Patrick Mueller
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Patrick Mueller pmue...@muellerware.orgwrote:
I've just started playing a bit with audio. One thing I noticed with both
FF 3.5 and WebKit nightlies is that usage of the loop attribute set to
true does not provide seamless looping. ie
stuff that's going on, and a Google Group that will be
set up to discuss. I'll post back to the es-discuss group as I hear more.
--
Patrick Mueller
how someone might make use of the ordered-ness in a plain old for/in
loop, for instance.
It would also be impossible, in the JavaScript in use today, AFAIK, to
emulate this with user-land JavaScript.
--
Patrick Mueller
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Patrick Mueller
pmue...@muellerware.org wrote:
Still doesn't seem like it makes sense to go ahead and build dependencies on
this (unfortunate, IMO) behavior.
Isn't HTML5 all about mandating and building dependencies on
unfortunate
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Patrick Mueller wrote:
This seems slightly different because it's making a dependency on
(unspec'd) JavaScript behavior. Though I'd guess there are other
examples.
FWIW I believe the next version of the ECMAScript spec will specify
20 matches
Mail list logo
