Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB
LC draft
Thanks for finding this. I filed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17303
/ Jonas
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
Hi,
Section 6 (Privacy) and 7
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:28 AM
To: Tobie Langel
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB
LC draft
Thanks for finding this. I filed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs
Thanks for finding this. I filed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17303
/ Jonas
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
Hi,
Section 6 (Privacy) and 7 (Authorization) of the IndexedDB LC draft[1]
feel very informative, yet they're not marked as such.
Hi,
Section 6 (Privacy) and 7 (Authorization) of the IndexedDB LC draft[1]
feel very informative, yet they're not marked as such.
Is there ground to keep them as normative content or should we explicitly
mark them as non-normative, remove their usage of the RFC 2119 MAY
keyword, and mark the
