[Bug 25054] Should the API be exposed to non-Mobile?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25054 Mounir Lamouri changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 25987] Blob URL parsing / fetching model

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25987 Arun changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 24338] Spec should have Fetch for Blob URLs

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24338 Bug 24338 depends on bug 25987, which changed state. Bug 25987 Summary: Blob URL parsing / fetching model https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25987 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug 25915] Cross-origin requests

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25915 Arun changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 25914] No definition of parsing blob's scheme data

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25914 Arun changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 25987] Blob URL parsing / fetching model

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25987 Bug 25987 depends on bug 25914, which changed state. Bug 25914 Summary: No definition of parsing blob's scheme data https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25914 What|Removed |Added

[Bug 25994] invalid extended attribute list syntax

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25994 Arun changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joshua Bell wrote: > > case 1: > > > > var tx; > > Promise.resolve().then(function() { > > tx = db.transaction(storeName); > > // tx should be active here... > > }).then(function() { > > //

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein wrote: > While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we change > this, and I concur that it seems unlikely to break content, I worry about > the spec and implementation complexity that would be incurred by having to > support the notio

RE: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

[+Yehuda, +Raf] From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein wrote: >> While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we >> change this, and I concur that it seems unlikely to break content, I >> worry about the spec and implement

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Domenic Denicola < dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > [+Yehuda, +Raf] > > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein wrote: > >> While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we > >> change t

RE: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

From: ad...@google.com [mailto:ad...@google.com] On Behalf Of Adam Klein > This seems orthogonal to bucketing. The IDB transaction deactivation step > isn't a sort of work that we'd want to bucket (as I argued in my previous > message, treating this IDB work as a task leads down some bad roads)