Re: CfC: publish Widget Updates as a WG Note; deadline May 23

2013-05-21 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
On Fri, 17 May 2013 03:40:16 +0400, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: It appears there is no longer sufficient interest to move the Widget Updates on the Recommendation track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish this spec as a WG Note and thus formally stop work on it. Go

Re: CfC - working on manifest

2013-05-21 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:28:58 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: Hi, at the face to face meeting we agreed to take back the work on a manifest specification for apps, based on the current manifest draft from sysapps [1] that was developed from the proposal [2]

Re: CfC: Face to face meeting on Components, 21 June

2013-05-21 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:19:53 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: Hi folks, Dmitry started talking to people about getting together in the Bay Area to talk through components, and ended up with a number of people interested. Although we are past the deadline for a

Re: A very preliminary draft of a URL spec

2013-05-21 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
If you go for standardizing an API for dealing with URIs (probably a good idea if you go down this route) - then I would recommend being inspired by the API of Java's java.net.URI http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/net/class-use/URI.html The only thing that is not well handled by the

Re: A very preliminary draft of a URL spec

2013-05-21 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: If you go for standardizing an API for dealing with URIs (probably a good idea if you go down this route) - then I would recommend being inspired by the API of Java's java.net.URI

Re: [IndexedDB] request feedback on IDBKeyRange.inList([]) enhancement

2013-05-21 Thread Ben Kelly
On May 20, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote: Cool. Knowing what performance difference you see between multi-get and just a bunch of gets in parallel (for time to delivery of the last value) will be interesting. A multi-get of any sort should avoid a bunch of messaging

Re: [IndexedDB] request feedback on IDBKeyRange.inList([]) enhancement

2013-05-21 Thread Alec Flett
I'm person On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Ben Kelly bke...@mozilla.com wrote: Hello all, Recently I've been working on a mobile application that makes heavy use of IndexedDB. In particular, there are times when this app must query a potentially large, non-consecutive list of keys.

Re: Re: [XHR] anonymous flag

2013-05-21 Thread Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
Anne wrote: I don't really feel it's responsible to remove this feature at this point without anyone involved in the original discussion speaking up. Hi all, you were involved in a discussion [1] regarding UMP and CORS back in 2010. I know, it's a while ago, and apparently you had already

[webcomponents]: First sketch of element element

2013-05-21 Thread Dimitri Glazkov
As promised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013AprJun/0685.html, I sketched out custom element declarative syntax using the last completion value idea: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/custom/index.html#declaring-custom-elements Please look it over.

Re: [IndexedDB] request feedback on IDBKeyRange.inList([]) enhancement

2013-05-21 Thread Kyaw Tun
Thank you. - 1000 get() calls in single txn: ~1600ms - getAll for all 1000 keys:~1200ms I would expect getAll could have better than that. It seems context switching between js and database is cheap. In that case, cursor walk could even better perform.

[Bug 22130] New: Modification for clear and delete method

2013-05-21 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22130 Bug ID: 22130 Summary: Modification for clear and delete method Classification: Unclassified Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All