Hi All,
One of the things we briefly discussed at the summit was that we
should make IDBErrorEvents have a .transaction. This since we are
allowing you to place new requests from within error handlers, but we
currently provide no way to get from an error handler to any useful
objects. Instead
Hello
Here are some issues/clarifications on the pc test suite
1. ta-uLHyIMvLwz/000 : dl.wgt
The archive is not encrypted. The test description mentions that it
is encrypted
2. i18n-lro/020
i18nlro20.wgt
Is the expectation of the testcase correct. Should the word SED
change to DES,
Microsoft supports publication of a FPWD of Web Messaging.
On Saturday, November 06, 2010 11:49 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Ian, All - during WebApps' November 1 gathering, participants expressed
in an interest in publishing a First Public Working Draft of Web
Messaging [1] and this is a CfC to
Hi,
I have completed the first stage of the Relational Data Model prototype.
Error checking is not complete (for example aggregate functions can be
nested currently, and this should not be allowed). So it should work for
correct examples, but may not generate an error (or the correct error) for
I am glad to see this after having brought this up last year at TPAC. I support
this.
Nikunj
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
[...] suggested the spec be published as a Working Group Note and this
is Call for Consensus to do.
I
I support this too.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote:
I am glad to see this after having brought this up last year at TPAC. I
support this.
Nikunj
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11276
Summary: Specify deleteDatabase
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
Hi David,
Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a
reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any potential
performance and compatibility issues. Are you imagining that the API is
effectively the same as XMLHttpRequest, except without the text and
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a
reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any potential
performance and compatibility issues. Are you imagining that the
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers crog...@google.com wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a
reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any potential
performance and compatibility issues. Are you imagining that the
On 11/9/10 2:54 PM, Chris Rogers wrote:
Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest
is a reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any
potential performance and compatibility issues. Are you imagining that
the API is effectively the same as
On 11/09/2010 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry for the delayed response.
No problem. public-webapps got strangely quiet after I sent my last
message, and I realized that everyone was off actually meeting about
this stuff...
I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest
is a
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11280
Summary: IDBFactory.databases doesn't work
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
13 matches
Mail list logo
