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

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25054 Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug 25987] Blob URL parsing / fetching model

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25987 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 24338] Spec should have Fetch for Blob URLs

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
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

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25915 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED

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

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25914 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED

[Bug 25987] Blob URL parsing / fetching model

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
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

2014-06-18 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25994 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

2014-06-18 Thread Adam Klein
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joshua Bell jsb...@google.com wrote: case 1: var tx; Promise.resolve().then(function() { tx = db.transaction(storeName); // tx should be active here...

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

2014-06-18 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein ad...@google.com 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

RE: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

2014-06-18 Thread Domenic Denicola
[+Yehuda, +Raf] From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc] On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Adam Klein ad...@google.com 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

Re: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

2014-06-18 Thread Adam Klein
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 ad...@google.com wrote: While I agree that the original microtask intent would suggest we

RE: Indexed DB Transactions vs. Microtasks

2014-06-18 Thread Domenic Denicola
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)