On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:37:05 +0200, Mike Belshe mbel...@google.com wrote:
Here is an updated doc:
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1TcKtHi-XUVKXj9erQkkBXdidnG78lhK04D-2lh4O51Y
Can you make this publicly available? Now it requires a google.com account.
Should this also
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:37:05 +0200, Mike Belshe mbel...@google.com
wrote:
Here is an updated doc:
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1TcKtHi-XUVKXj9erQkkBXdidnG78lhK04D-2lh4O51Y
Can you make this
User credentials is defined in section 2.2 of [1], but never used.
Jonathan
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/
Hi folks,
Currently there are only two ways to clear an object store of all
data: (i) remove the object store and recreate it, or (ii) open a
cursor and call remove for all entries. I propose a third, simpler
approach:
interface IDBObjectStore
{
...
void clear();
...
};
Any thoughts?
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:04:45 +0200, Jonathan Rees
j...@creativecommons.org wrote:
User credentials is defined in section 2.2 of [1], but never used.
Jonathan
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/
Unfortunate that nobody spotted that earlier. It should have been
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, ben turner bent.mozi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Currently there are only two ways to clear an object store of all
data: (i) remove the object store and recreate it, or (ii) open a
cursor and call remove for all entries. I propose a third, simpler
approach:
Below is the draft agenda for the August 5 Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all of the agenda topics via
public-webapps is encouraged (as it can result in a shortened meeting).
Please address Open/Raised Issues and Open Actions before the meeting:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I think there is a bug in the above proposal though. clear() should
return a IDBRequest. However the .result of the request should likely
be null.
Yes, definitely. My fingers were too fast for my brain.
-Ben
Hey all,
Some of the feedback I've been seeing on the web is that there is no way
to remove a database. Examples seem to be web page wants to allow the
user to remove the data they stored. A site can almost accomplish this
now by removing all object stores, but we still end up storing some
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Shawn Wilsher sdwi...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hey all,
Some of the feedback I've been seeing on the web is that there is no way to
remove a database. Examples seem to be web page wants to allow the user to
remove the data they stored. A site can almost accomplish
Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current
{DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) [2]. When
our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to configurable: false,
which completely destroyed the ability to set accessors on the interface
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead tra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Hey folks, just wondering what the justification behind the current
{DontDelete} semantics are in WebIDL 4.4 [1] and 4.5 (second bullet) [2].
When our IE9 binding ported this to ES5, it translated to configurable:
12 matches
Mail list logo
