http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9790
Nikunj Mehta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >> > I'm OK with making createObjectStore/createIndex synchronous. It
> would
> >> > definitely make such code cleaner and I don't see a major downside,
> but
> >> > at
> >> > the sam
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >> >> 4. Maciej expressed concern that this might make it impossible to
> >> >> expose IndexedDB to non-JS languages such as ObjectiveC
> >> >>
> >> >> Let me address these in order (f
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Doug Turner
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After
> reviewing
> >> the Web Notification specification [
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> >> 4. Maciej expressed concern that this might make it impossible to
>> >> expose IndexedDB to non-JS languages such as ObjectiveC
>> >>
>> >> Let me address these in order (for the purposes of this discussion
>> >> I'll use a separate functi
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>>
>> I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing
>> the Web Notification specification [2], I would like to propose the
>> following changes:
>>
>>
>> 1) Facto
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I think that IDBEvent needs to inherit from Event [1] in order for us to
> properly inherit from EventTarget in IDBRequest. Specifically, EventTarget
> takes an EventListener [2] which has a method, handleEvent, that takes an
>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > I'm OK with making createObjectStore/createIndex synchronous. It would
>> > definitely make such code cleaner and I don't see a major downside, but
>> > at
>> > the same time I feel like this API is starting to get kind of ad-hoc and
>> >
