Re: May face-to-face meetings for HTML and WebApps; deadline March 4

2012-03-02 Thread Arthur Barstow
WebApps WG members - in the absence of any major non-resolvable conflicts, I think we should consider the May 1-2 dates as confirmed. As such, if there are any major issues with these dates, please speak up by March 4 at the latest. -Thanks, AB On 3/1/12 11:22 AM, ext Philippe Le Hegaret

Re: CfC: publish Widget URI spec as a WG Note; deadline March 9

2012-03-02 Thread Robin Berjon
On Mar 2, 2012, at 14:16 , Arthur Barstow wrote: It appears no one is interested in moving the Widget URI spec along the REC track. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to stop work on that spec and to publish it as a WG Note using the following ED as the basis:

Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

2012-03-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi All, While editing the spec just now I came across something that I didn't quite understand. In section 4.8 versionchange transaction steps step 9 says: If for any reason the versionchange transaction is aborted while

[Bug 15796] Specify how to extract a key when keyPath is an array

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15796 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 16013] objectStoreNames order should be specified (alphabetic?)

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16013 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 15987] [IndexedDB] Invalid dates should not be valid keys

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15987 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug 15864] [IndexedDB] Array as key, avoid array loops

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15864 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug 15717] Adding TransactionInactiveError to IDBObjectStore.count and IDBIndex.count

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15717 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Joshua Bell
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi All, What should we do for the following scenario: store = db.createObjectStore(store); index = store.createIndex(index, x, { multiEntry: true }); store.add({ x: [a, b, {}, c] }, 1); index.count().onsuccess =

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

2012-03-02 Thread Joshua Bell
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi All, What should we do if an array which is used for a multiEntry index contains multiple entries with the same value? I.e. consider the following code: store = db.createObjectStore(store); index1 =

[Bug 15856] [IndexedDB] Remove empty string as a possible version

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15856 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

RE: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
On Friday, March 02, 2012 7:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi All, While editing the spec just now I came across something that I didn't quite understand. In section 4.8 versionchange transaction steps step 9 says:

Re: Synchronous postMessage for Workers?

2012-03-02 Thread David Herman
On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Put it another way, when you spin the event loop, not only does your code need to be prepared for anything happening. All functions up the call stack also has to. That

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Messaging; deadline March 9

2012-03-02 Thread Arthur Barstow
The Web Messaging spec has one open bug [13686] and it is a request for a non-normative example. I'd like to get this spec moving on the REC track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD using http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/ as the basis. This CfC satisfies the group's

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry and duplicate elements

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
We would like some clarification on this scenario. When you say that FF will result on 1 index entry for each index that implies that the duplicates are automatically removed. That implies that the multiEntry flag doesn't take unique into consideration. Is this correct? There seems to be

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
We agree with FF's implementation. It seems to match the current sparse index concept where values that can't be indexed are automatically ignored. However, this doesn't prevent them from being added. Israel On Friday, March 02, 2012 8:59 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM,

CfC: publish LCWD of Web Workers; deadline March 9

2012-03-02 Thread Arthur Barstow
The Web Messaging spec has two open bugs: [14086] is marked as an enhancement and [14214] is a minor editorial comment. I'd like to get this spec moving on the REC track so this is a Call for Consensus to publish a new LCWD using http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ as the basis. This CfC

[Bug 16206] New: Editing spec should clarify normative and non-normative sections

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16206 Summary: Editing spec should clarify normative and non-normative sections Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Bug 16205] New: IDBRequest returned by IDBFactory.deleteDatabase will be set to undefined

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16205 Summary: IDBRequest returned by IDBFactory.deleteDatabase will be set to undefined Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Joshua Bell
I should clarify; Chromium will not actually alert 0, but would raise an exception (unless caught, of course) Israel's comment makes me wonder if there's some disagreement or confusion about this clause of the spec: If there are any indexes referencing this object store whose key path is a

[Bug 16207] New: Editing states such as style with css flag should be reset when the document is replaced

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16207 Summary: Editing states such as style with css flag should be reset when the document is replaced Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All

Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

2012-03-02 Thread David Grogan
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote: On Friday, March 02, 2012 7:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote: Hi All, While editing the spec just now I came across something that I didn't

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from. There was an email thread [1] in which Jonas proposed this change and we had agreed to the following: I propose that we remove the requirement that we have today that if an indexed property exists, it has to contain a valid value.

Re: [fileapi] timing of readyState changes vs. events

2012-03-02 Thread Eric U
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:01:55 +0100, Eric U er...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote: OK, so the change is to ensure that these events are fired directly,

Re: [fileapi] timing of readyState changes vs. events

2012-03-02 Thread Arun Ranganathan
Eric, On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:01:55 +0100, Eric U er...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Arun Ranganathan aranganat...@mozilla.com wrote: OK, so the change is to ensure that these events are fired directly, and not queued, right? I'll make this change. This applies to

Re: RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Odin Hørthe Omdal
From: Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com Unfortunately, we didn’t update the spec to reflect this agreement. You or I could open a bug to ensure the spec is updated to capture this change. Yes, better get it into the spec :-) About the behavior itself, FWIW, I think it's a reasonable

Re: Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

2012-03-02 Thread Odin Hørthe Omdal
I concur with Israel, plus David's question about nullness as opposed to emptiness. -- Odin, Opera 

[FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

2012-03-02 Thread Feras Moussa
At TPAC we discussed the ability to deterministically close blobs with a few others. As we've discussed in the createObjectURL thread[1], a Blob may represent an expensive resource (eg. expensive in terms of memory, battery, or disk space). At present there is no way for an application to

[Bug 16211] New: Relax the ability to add a record if it doesn't meet the constraints of a predefined index

2012-03-02 Thread bugzilla
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16211 Summary: Relax the ability to add a record if it doesn't meet the constraints of a predefined index Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows

RE: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
I’ve created a bug to track this issue: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16211 Israel On Friday, March 02, 2012 4:39 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote: From: Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.commailto:isra...@microsoft.com Unfortunately, we didn’t update the spec to reflect this

Re: IndexedDB: What happens when versionchange transaction is aborted?

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
I'm okay with setting the value of the objectStoresNames to empty instead of null. Israel On Friday, March 02, 2012 4:46 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote: I concur with Israel, plus David's question about nullness as opposed to emptiness. -- Odin, Opera

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Joshua Bell
Thanks. Based on this, I agree that in the multiEntry scenario at the start of this thread, 3 is the more consistent result. On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.comwrote: I’ve created a bug to track this issue:

[indexeddb] What should happen when specifying the wrong mode or direction?

2012-03-02 Thread Israel Hilerio
We need to define in the spec what should happen if a developers defines an invalid mode or direction. Do we throw a TypeError Exception or revert to defauls? FF seems to allow this behavior and reverts back to a readOnly transaction mode and a direction of next, respectively: *

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
Crap, we need to better about filing bugs :-) Yes, my understanding is that there was agreement to update the spec such that if evaluating and index's keyPath does not yield a valid key that does not affect weather the value is inserted in the objectStore. In other words, indexes do not add

Re: [indexeddb] What should happen when specifying the wrong mode or direction?

2012-03-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
During my recent editing of the spec I noticed the same issue. It appears that it was clearly defined that an invalid mode parameter should throw a TypeError, but no behaviour was defined for invalid direction parameters. I fixed this by specifying that invalid direction parameters should also

Re: [IndexedDB] Multientry with invalid keys

2012-03-02 Thread Jonas Sicking
Oh, I missed Joshua's last email. So it seems everyone is in agreement. I'll make the edits and then close the bug. / Jonas On Saturday, March 3, 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: Crap, we need to better about filing bugs :-) Yes, my understanding is that there was agreement to update the spec such

Re: [FileAPI] Deterministic release of Blob proposal

2012-03-02 Thread Charles Pritchard
On 3/2/2012 4:54 PM, Feras Moussa wrote: At TPAC we discussed the ability to deterministically close blobs with a few others. ... To address this issue, we propose that a close method be added to the Blob interface. When called, the close method should release the underlying