On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> This doesn't address the problem that authors are unlikely to even
> attempt to deal with this situation, given how rare it is. And even
> less likely to deal with it successfully given how hard the situation
> is reproduce while testing.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Dmitry Titov
>> wrote:
>> > Nobody proposed locking the file. Sorry for being unclear if that sounds
>> > like it. Basically it's all about t
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Dmitry Titov
> wrote:
> > Nobody proposed locking the file. Sorry for being unclear if that sounds
> > like it. Basically it's all about timestamps.
> > As Chris proposed earlier, a read operation can grab
Hi,
I've been reading the new IndexedDB spec as published here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/
My first impression is that this simpler than WebSimpleDB, but not too
simple. I'm happy to see detached readers being mentioned.
There's one other piece of the concurrency story that could be useful.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
> Nobody proposed locking the file. Sorry for being unclear if that sounds
> like it. Basically it's all about timestamps.
> As Chris proposed earlier, a read operation can grab the timestamp of the
> file before and after reading its content a
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Dmitry Titov wrote:
> Nobody proposed locking the file. Sorry for being unclear if that sounds
> like it. Basically it's all about timestamps.
>
> As Chris proposed earlier, a read operation can grab the timestamp of the
> file before and after reading its conten
Nobody proposed locking the file. Sorry for being unclear if that sounds
like it. Basically it's all about timestamps.
As Chris proposed earlier, a read operation can grab the timestamp of the
file before and after reading its content and throw exception if the
timestamps do not match. This is pre
Lachlan,
On Jan 15, 2010, at 8:48 AM, ext Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Since the CfC ends later today and there's been no objections and
presumably won't be, I've prepared the draft for publication as FPWD,
and rewritten the status of the document and done the PubRules checks.
I just need to know what t
Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working
Draft (FPWD) of the Selectors API Level 2 spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged
and silence will be assumed to be ass
Rokesh,
On Jan 15, 2010, at 6:43 AM, ext Rokesh Jankie wrote:
I just found out that this group is very interesting and it stopped
because of several reasons in 2007.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Web Applications Format (WAF) WG and
Web API WG which both ended in 2008 (and as Lachan indic
I'm sorry for my mistake then. I would like to participate.
Nice to hear the the group is much alive and active.
Thanks for the note.
Regards,
Rokesh Jankie
---
QAFE
powered by experience & quality
Website : http://www.qafe.com/
Youtube : http://youtube.com/qafechannel
LinkedIn: http://www.lin
Rokesh Jankie wrote:
I just found out that this group is very interesting and it stopped because
of several reasons in 2007.
You must be mistaken. This group is very much alive and active. While
the Web API WG charter ended in 2007, the Web Apps group was rechartered
[1], merging the Web AP
Hi there,
I just found out that this group is very interesting and it stopped because
of several reasons in 2007.
We are in 2010 now and I think the momentum is there for declarative
application development.
We have a proposal and want to make it to an open specification.
The question: how to con
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> > I don't think we should worry about underlying file changes.
> > If the app wants to cut a file into parts and copy them separately, then
> > perhaps the app should first copy the f
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> I don't think we should worry about underlying file changes.
> If the app wants to cut a file into parts and copy them separately, then
> perhaps the app should first copy the file into a private area. (I'm
> presuming that one day, we'll ha
I don't think we should worry about underlying file changes.
If the app wants to cut a file into parts and copy them separately, then
perhaps the app should first copy the file into a private area. (I'm
presuming that one day, we'll have the concept of a chroot'd private file
storage area for a w
16 matches
Mail list logo
