Re: [WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Travis Leithead 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: > false", which com

[WebIDL] interface objects and properties too restrictive?

2010-08-03 Thread Travis Leithead
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

Re: [IndexedDB] Need a method to remove a database

2010-08-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Shawn Wilsher 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 this now by >

[IndexedDB] Need a method to remove a database

2010-08-03 Thread Shawn Wilsher
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

Re: [IndexedDB] Need a method to clear an object store

2010-08-03 Thread ben turner
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Jonas Sicking 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

[widgets] Draft agenda for 5 August 2010 voice conf

2010-08-03 Thread Arthur Barstow
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: http://w

Re: [IndexedDB] Need a method to clear an object store

2010-08-03 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, ben turner 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: > > interface ID

Re: Term "user credentials" defined but not used in XHR CR

2010-08-03 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:04:45 +0200, Jonathan Rees 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 delimited by XMLH

[IndexedDB] Need a method to clear an object store

2010-08-03 Thread ben turner
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? -Ben

Term "user credentials" defined but not used in XHR CR

2010-08-03 Thread Jonathan Rees
"User credentials" is defined in section 2.2 of [1], but never used. Jonathan [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/

Re: XMLHttpRequest Priority Proposal

2010-08-03 Thread Mike Belshe
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:37:05 +0200, Mike Belshe > 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? No

Re: XMLHttpRequest Priority Proposal

2010-08-03 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:37:05 +0200, Mike Belshe 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 throw an INVALID_STATE