http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12438
Eliot Graff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Looks great to me. Remember that we need to make both .transaction
> >> and .setVersion throw if called within the ca
> What we're trying to convey is that two requests placed against different can
> execute in any order, but that this doesn't matter, and the isolation mode
> and the transaction scheduling ensures that.
>
Thanks, that makes sense. Any objection to using your phraseology?
There is no guarantee
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Eliot Graff wrote:
> In the changeset I commited on 20 April, I had this change for the last
> sentence of step 4 of the description of the lifetime of a transaction in
> section 3.1.7: [1]
>
> Previous:
> Similarly, the isolation mode ensure that it doesn't matt
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Looks great to me. Remember that we need to make both .transaction and
>> .setVersion throw if called within the callback from either of them.
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 20
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> > wrote:
>> > > The open method description in the IDBFactory talks abou
In the changeset I commited on 20 April, I had this change for the last
sentence of step 4 of the description of the lifetime of a transaction in
section 3.1.7: [1]
Previous:
Similarly, the isolation mode ensure that it doesn't matter which order
requests placed against different transactions a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> Looks great to me. Remember that we need to make both .transaction and
> .setVersion throw if called within the callback from either of them.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Israel Hilerio
> wrote:
> > I've created a bu
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
>privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
>just hold open a communication channel to its server and shuttle
>information between the iframes on A.com and B.com that way.
That do
As we reviewed the actions we [the UA] could take in a variety of scenarios,
tying the connect-ability to the top-level domain was the most predictable for
web authors.
IE9's privacy feature [1] blocks network requests to any domain on a user's
"filter list" (Tracking Protection List) when the
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Israel Hilerio
> > wrote:
> > > The open method description in the IDBFactory talks about setting the
> > >source of the IDBRequest to "no source". Wh
Thanks for the feedback!
Yes, I agree early and thorough review is needed and my expectation
was/is that those vested in a spec and its test suite would actively
participate in the creation and review of tests, regardless of whether
that function was documented or not. I will add some related
On 04/21/2011 01:10 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh ra
13 matches
Mail list logo
