Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

On 3/2/2012 4:54 PM, Feras Moussa wrote: At TPAC we discussed the ability to deterministically close blobs with a few others. ... To address this issue, we propose that a close method be added to the Blob interface. When called, the close method should release the underlying resource

Re: [indexeddb] What should happen when specifying the wrong "mode" or "direction"?

During my recent editing of the spec I noticed the same issue. It appears that it was clearly defined that an invalid "mode" parameter should throw a TypeError, but no behaviour was defined for invalid "direction" parameters. I fixed this by specifying that invalid "direction" parameters should a

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

Oh, I missed Joshua's last email. So it seems everyone is in agreement. I'll make the edits and then close the bug. / Jonas On Saturday, March 3, 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Crap, we need to better about filing bugs :-) > > Yes, my understanding is that there was agreement to update the spec su

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

Crap, we need to better about filing bugs :-) Yes, my understanding is that there was agreement to update the spec such that if evaluating and index's keyPath does not yield a valid key that does not affect weather the value is inserted in the objectStore. In other words, indexes do not add const

[indexeddb] What should happen when specifying the wrong "mode" or "direction"?

We need to define in the spec what should happen if a developers defines an invalid "mode" or "direction". Do we throw a TypeError Exception or revert to defauls? FF seems to allow this behavior and reverts back to a readOnly transaction mode and a direction of next, respectively: * db.transac

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

Thanks. Based on this, I agree that in the multiEntry scenario at the start of this thread, 3 is the more consistent result. On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > I’ve created a bug to track this issue: > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16211 > > ** **

Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

I'm okay with setting the value of the objectStoresNames to empty instead of null. Israel On Friday, March 02, 2012 4:46 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote: > I concur with Israel, plus David's question about nullness as opposed to > emptiness. > > > > -- > Odin, Opera

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

I’ve created a bug to track this issue: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16211 Israel On Friday, March 02, 2012 4:39 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote: From: "Israel Hilerio" mailto:isra...@microsoft.com>> > Unfortunately, we didn’t update the spec to reflect this agreement. > You or I

[Bug 16211] New: Relax the ability to add a record if it doesn't meet the constraints of a predefined index

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16211 Summary: Relax the ability to add a record if it doesn't meet the constraints of a predefined index Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows N

[FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

At TPAC we discussed the ability to deterministically close blobs with a few others. As we've discussed in the createObjectURL thread[1], a Blob may represent an expensive resource (eg. expensive in terms of memory, battery, or disk space). At present there is no way for an application to determin

Re: Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

I concur with Israel, plus David's question about nullness as opposed to emptiness. -- Odin, Opera 

Re: RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

From: "Israel Hilerio" > Unfortunately, we didn’t update the spec to reflect this agreement. > You or I could open a bug to ensure the spec is updated to capture > this change. Yes, better get it into the spec :-) About the behavior itself, FWIW, I think it's a reasonable one. -- Odin, Op

Re: [fileapi] timing of readyState changes vs. events

Eric, > On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:01:55 +0100, Eric U wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan > > wrote: > >> OK, so the change is to ensure that these events are fired > >> directly, > >> and not queued, right? I'll make this change. This applies to > >> all > >> readAs* meth

Re: [fileapi] timing of readyState changes vs. events

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:01:55 +0100, Eric U wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan >> wrote: >>> >>> OK, so the change is to ensure that these events are fired directly, and >>> not queued, right?  I'll make this c

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from. There was an email thread [1] in which Jonas proposed this change and we had agreed to the following: >> I propose that we remove the requirement that we have today that if >> an indexed property exists, it has to contain a valid valu

Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > On Friday, March 02, 2012 7:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > While editing the spec just now I came across something that I didn't > > > quite understand. In sect

[Bug 16207] New: Editing states such as style with css flag should be reset when the document is replaced

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16207 Summary: Editing states such as style with css flag should be reset when the document is replaced Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

I should clarify; Chromium will not actually alert 0, but would raise an exception (unless caught, of course) Israel's comment makes me wonder if there's some disagreement or confusion about this clause of the spec: "If there are any indexes referencing this object store whose key path is a strin

[Bug 16205] New: IDBRequest returned by IDBFactory.deleteDatabase will be set to undefined

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16205 Summary: IDBRequest returned by IDBFactory.deleteDatabase will be set to undefined Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Sta

[Bug 16206] New: Editing spec should clarify normative and non-normative sections

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16206 Summary: Editing spec should clarify normative and non-normative sections Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All Status: NEW

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Workers; deadline March 9

The Web Messaging spec has two open bugs: [14086] is marked as an "enhancement" and [14214] is a minor editorial comment. I'd like to get this spec moving on the REC track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD using as the basis. This CfC sat

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

We agree with FF's implementation. It seems to match the current sparse index concept where values that can't be indexed are automatically ignored. However, this doesn't prevent them from being added. Israel On Friday, March 02, 2012 8:59 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM,

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Messaging; deadline March 9

The Web Messaging spec has one open bug [13686] and it is a request for a non-normative example. I'd like to get this spec moving on the REC track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD using as the basis. This CfC satisfies the group's require

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that FF will result on 1 index entry for each index that implies that the duplicates are automatically removed. That implies that the multiEntry flag doesn't take unique into consideration. Is this correct? There seems to be som

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Put it another way, when you spin the event loop, not only does your > code need to be prepared for anything happening. All functions up the > call stack also has to. That makes it very ha

RE: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

On Friday, March 02, 2012 7:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > While editing the spec just now I came across something that I didn't > > quite understand. In section 4.8 ""versionchange" transaction steps" > > step 9 says: > > > >

[Bug 15856] [IndexedDB] Remove empty string as a possible version

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15856 Jonas Sicking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hi All, > > What should we do if an array which is used for a multiEntry index > contains multiple entries with the same value? I.e. consider the > following code: > > store = db.createObjectStore("store"); > index1 = store.createIndex("index

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hi All, > > What should we do for the following scenario: > > store = db.createObjectStore("store"); > index = store.createIndex("index", "x", { multiEntry: true }); > store.add({ x: ["a", "b", {}, "c"] }, 1); > index.count().onsuccess = func

[Bug 15717] Adding TransactionInactiveError to IDBObjectStore.count and IDBIndex.count

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15717 Jonas Sicking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 15864] [IndexedDB] Array as key, avoid array loops

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15864 Jonas Sicking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 15987] [IndexedDB] Invalid dates should not be valid keys

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15987 Jonas Sicking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 16013] objectStoreNames order should be specified (alphabetic?)

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16013 Jonas Sicking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 15796] Specify how to extract a key when keyPath is an array

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15796 Jonas Sicking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hi All, > > While editing the spec just now I came across something that I didn't > quite understand. In section 4.8 ""versionchange" transaction steps" > step 9 says: > > "If for any reason the "versionchange" transaction is aborted while in

Re: CfC: publish Widget URI spec as a WG Note; deadline March 9

On Mar 2, 2012, at 14:16 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > It appears no one is interested in moving the Widget URI spec along the REC > track. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to stop work on that spec and to > publish it as a WG Note using the following ED as the basis: > > http://dev.w3.org/2006

CfC: publish Widget URI spec as a WG Note; deadline March 9

It appears no one is interested in moving the Widget URI spec along the REC track. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to stop work on that spec and to publish it as a WG Note using the following ED as the basis: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/ If you have any comments or concerns ab

Re: May face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps; deadline March 4

WebApps WG members - in the absence of any major non-resolvable conflicts, I think we should consider the May 1-2 dates as confirmed. As such, if there are any major issues with these dates, please speak up by March 4 at the latest. -Thanks, AB On 3/1/12 11:22 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret wrote