On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
2) In the spec, dynamic transactions and the
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:53 PM, João Eiras jo...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:09:14 +0200, Mark Seaborn mseab...@chromium.org
wrote:
Is there any plan for involving the user in storage allocation decisions
for
IndexedDB? [1]
For comparison, the WebStorage API [2] doesn't have
There is not really a single detailed W3C policy that's been
mandated for processing spec feedback. It's basically up to each
individual working group to determine the specific details for
what works best for them.
That said, the HTML WG has a documented Decision Policy document
that outlines the
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate
On 4/20/2010 4:11 AM, Mark Seaborn wrote:
1) It doesn't allow a web app to ask for a storage allocation up front,
before it starts to consume the storage.
Why does that matter?
2) In Opera, the quota can only be increased in multiples of about 15, so it
takes three prompts to get up into the
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a separate
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in firefox
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in
firefox
if we can come up
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9562
Summary: Opening a database with a different description is
underspecified
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
URL:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren
ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking
jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in
firefox
if we can come
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
As I've said
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
and I send and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
reconnected to the internet.
Anyone wanting to debate whether or not the UA should be free to clean up
persistent storage without asking the user should
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
As I see it, there's no such thing as permanent storage for Web browser
managed data. Even if a site expresses preferences that it would like to
keep its data resident for a long time, there cannot be a guarantee for
the
According to the spec, we will dispatch a progress event for a read method.
But per the Progress Events 1.0 spec, the attributes loaded and total
are defined as unsigned long.
interface ProgressEvent : events::Event {
...
readonly attribute unsigned long loaded;
On 4/19/2010 10:08 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Mark Seabornmseab...@chromium.org wrote:
2) It is too permissive because it enforces no limit on the amount of
space a web app can use: A web app from example.com can create an
unlimited number of puppet
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm offline
and I send and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm
reconnected to the
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:47:06 +0900, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
I kinda hate the boolean argument. I would rather have a syntax where
the intent is obvious from the source code. A boolean is not very self-
documenting. In fact I can't even remember right now whether true or
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:27:10 +0900, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why can't it be made exactly like UMP? All of the requirements in UMP
have been discussed at length and in great detail on this list by some
highly qualified people. The current UMP spec reflects all of that
20 matches
Mail list logo
