On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> This new proposal solves both these by making all the modifications
>> first, then firing all the events. Hence the implementation can
>> separate implementing the m
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:49 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jun
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:48:43 +0200, Ashar Javed
> wrote:
>>
>> If a server is returning (Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *) without setting
>> the Origin header in HTTP request then can we say that server is not
>> implementing CORS properly
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> What do you think about NOT allowing IDBFactorySync.deleteDatabase and
> IDBDatabaseSync.close to be called from within the transaction callback
> method of IDBDatabaseSync.transaction or IDBDatabaseSync.setVersion? This
> will reduce the
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
> outlined in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c8 is the
> way forward? I.e. we introduce new exception interfaces in DOM Core for all
> the diff
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> So with Web IDL going to Last Call does this mean that the exception model
>> outlined in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10623#c8 is the
>> way forward? I.e. we introdu
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>>
>> The thing I don't like about this proposal is that it encourages authors
>> to use "e instanceof IndexSizeError" or similar. This will work 98% of
>> the time and then fail in an extremely mysteriou
Hi All,
I've finally caught up on all the emails in this thread. Here are my
impressions so far.
I don't think John J Barton's proposal to fire "before mutation
notifications" is doable. Trying to make all APIs that would, or
could, mutate the DOM throw or otherwise fail would be much too
complex
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> Sorry if these have all been discussed before. I just read the File API for
> the first time and 2 random questions popped in my head.
> 1) If I'm using readAsText with a particular encoding and the data in the
> file is not actually in t
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> It's a pain since it forces us to try to coordinate codes across
>> multiple specifications, working groups and standards organizations.
>
> Anything that allows u
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> What is the expected behavior when calling update() in a cursor index that
> requires unique values. Firefox allows the update, even when it results in a
> duplicate value. Chrome throws an error event with the code set to
> UNKNOWN_ERR
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> We believe an error should be thrown because of the violation of the
>> unique value index constraint and the error code should be set to
>> CONSTRAINT_ERR. What do you think?
>
> IIRC, we de
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think John J Barton's proposal to fire "before mutation
>>&g
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, John J Barton
wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> We are definitely
>> short on use cases for mutation events in general which is a problem.
>>
>
> 1. Graphical breakpoints. The user marks some DOM element or attribute to
>
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> We're keen to resolve the remaining issues with the WebSockets API and have a
> timetable
> to get to Candidate Recommendation. From informal conversations we've had, we
> believe
> other browser vendors share this goal. I think the current
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John J Barton
wrote:
In short before spending more time on this, I'd like to see a
comprehensive proposal, including a description of the use cases it
solves and how it solves them. I strongly doubt that this approach is
practical.
>
> There
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Eliot Graff wrote:
> Done and pushed to Mercurial.
>
> Updated sync and async versions of openCursor on ObjectStore and Index as
> follows:
> made type of 'range' equal to any
> made 'range' nullable
I think you missed updating one of the cursor opening functions
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
>> So yes, my proposal only solves the usecase outside mutation handlers.
>> However this is arguably better than never solving the use case as in
>> your proposal. I'm sure people will end up writing buggy code, but
>> ideally this will be f
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> >
>> >> We bel
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Sean Hogan wrote:
> On 8/07/11 8:28 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, John J Barton
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We are definitely
>>&g
I think setting the event.transaction to the newly created transaction
for setVersion's success event makes sense (we might even do that in
the firefox implementation iirc, but i'm not fully sure).
For all the other events mentioned in the original comment of this
thread it needs to be null as no
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > 12816 - Make second argument in constructor an object for future
>> > extensibility
>>
>> I'd like to see this change made too.
>>
>> So far there&
2011/7/11 Anne van Kesteren :
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:00:55 +0200, Adrian Bateman
> wrote:
>>
>> I was about to send a similar proposal. We'd prefer to add an optional
>> argument to append that specifies the filename. This is the smallest change
>> to
>> implementations and doesn't require devel
2011/7/11 Charles Pritchard :
> On 7/11/2011 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
>>
>> On 11 July 2011 10:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> Additionally, what is the use case of being able to set the filename
>>> during a FormData submission? My perception was
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On 11 July 2011 10:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Additionally, what is the use case of being able to set the filename
>> during a FormData submission? My perception was that the main use case
>> was to not get an e
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, we should [not] do things now that are likely to
>> create a more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future.
>
> I agree, indeed that'
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On the other hand, we should [not] do th
2011/7/11 Adrian Bateman :
> On 11 July 2011 10:53, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Adrian Bateman
> wrote:
>> > Some content management systems use the original filename by default
>> > when storing files in document libraries. It's cert
Hi all,
Jokes aside, setVersion has some issues. The problem goes something like this:
Opening a database starts simple. All you do is
var req = indexedDB.open("mydatabase");
req.onsuccess = function(e) {
doStuffWith(e.target.result);
}
However, the first thing you always need to do is to cre
Hmm.. The fix here is somewhat unclear. Obviously you're allowed to
call .continue multiple times if a "success" event fires in between.
The very first sentence in the definition for .continue reads:
"If this cursor's got value flag is false, this method throws a
NOT_ALLOWED_ERR".
Was this not e
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any
>> >> of the types listed in the following email:
>> >> http:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Assuming you have the following records in an objectStore objStore:
>
> Record #1: {prop1: 1, prop2: "foo1"}
> Record #2: {prop1: 2, prop2: "foo2"}
> Record #3: {prop1: 3, prop2: "foo3"}
> Record #4: {prop1: 4, prop2: "foo4"}
>
> keyPath =
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> I see what you're saying.
>
> What we originally wanted to convey was that calling this method
> consecutively or in a row within the same onsuccess handler is not allowed.
> This assumed the success handler was not invoked in between the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> A couple of questions regarding client state vs. server state on several
> calls. What should be the client behavior for subsequent calls after a
> transaction abort is called? This assumes the server request hasn't been
> processed yet
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> A couple of questions regarding client state vs. server state on several
>> calls. What should be the client behavior for subsequent calls after a
>> transa
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> What should be the client state after a deleteIndex is called?
> For example looking at the code below:
>
> 1. var index = objStore.index(indexName);
> 2. objStore.deleteIndex(indexName);
> 3. try {
> 4. index.openCursor().onerror = f
Awesome! Thanks! Sorry again for jumping in so late.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Eliot Graff wrote:
> Updated the spec with Jonas' wording.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Eliot
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Israel Hilerio
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > What should be the client state after a deleteIndex is called?
>> > For
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On 7/11/11 8:23 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > >
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:02 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > What should be the client state after a deleteIndex is called?
>> > For
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Jonas,
>
> We like the concepts and principles you are proposing. It provides a more
> cohesive mechanism for enforcing/supporting upgrades and it leverages the
> existing concepts like "onversionchange" and "onblock" handlers which we ar
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2011 1:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > Jonas,
>> >
>> > We like the concepts and principles you are proposing.
2011/7/18 Adrian Bateman :
> On Monday, July 11, 2011 12:46 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>> Problem is too strong a statement. I am all for trivial changes, part of my
>> advocacy for getFile is from past experiences when blob was less supported;
>> getFile would have helped.
>>
>> FileReader has b
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 7/18/2011 2:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> > If there is an API that replies on File to
>>> > work correctly we think we should fix it to work with Blob. For
>>> > example, FileR
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote:
>>> So yes, my proposal only solves the usecase outside mutation handlers.
>>> However this is arguably better than never solving the use case as in
>>>
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Thanks for the new proposal, Jonas. I'm very excited about the progress
> we're making towards a saner world!
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> [ { target: node1, type: "chil
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 07/20/2011 02:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rafael Weinstein
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2011 10:50 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, July 17, 2011 1:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 07/20/2011 06:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>>>> Hence I'm leaning towards using the almost-asynchronous proposal for
>>>> now. If we end up getting the feedback from people that use mutation
>>&
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. Apps would need a way to disable
>>> notifications during such animation sequences, and would be able to find
>>> ano
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> * Recursive invocation (i.e. from the filter) is prohibited and throws
> INVALID_STATE_ERR as is already the case in Opera and Gecko. (WebKit does
> not always do it.)
This is not the case in gecko. We don't have any specific recursion
d
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:46:36 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> This is not the case in gecko. We don't have any specific recursion
>> detecting code here. We just use the generic "javascript is recursing
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:27 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday,
It seems to me like this feature heavily overlaps with CORS. In fact,
it addresses the exact same cases, except that it does it for
resources which we for various reasons use
allow-embedding-but-not-reading cross site.
Would it make more sense to simply add this into CORS?
/ Jonas
On Fri, Jul 22
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>>> On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
> On 22/07/11 02:26, Adam Klein wrote:
>>
>> This is only complex because you're coalescing the mutations, right?
>> In Rafael's original proposal, each mutation would result in a single
>> immutable mutation record, so the semantics would be to
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
> On 22/07/11 16:54, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> I don't need software that uses mutation events. I need software that
>> triggers editing operations, so I can them actually measure what DOM
>> mutations are performed in the course of these edit
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>> On 07/21/2011 06:01 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/21/11 5:08 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the explanation.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> We should have much richer events to aid with rich text editing. Using
>> mutation notifications for this is will not create a good experience
>> for th
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
> Regarding transactions in the IndexedDB specification (3.1.7 Transaction):
>
>>> "Once a transaction no longer can become active, and if the transaction
>>> hasn't been aborted, the implementation must automatically attempt to
>>> commit it.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm the maintainer of CORS Filter, a small library for retrofitting
> Java web apps with CORS support.
>
> A developer who is using the library reported that the library was
> unexpectedly denying CORS requests from version
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> One possible way to change this is to merge opening a database and
>> upgrading it to a given version. Here's what the API would look like:
> [...]
>>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> In an IRC discussion with Ian Hickson and Tab Atkins, we can up with the
> following idea for convenient element creation:
> Element.create(tagName, attributeMap, children…)
> Creates an element with the specified tag, attributes, and
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Joran Greef wrote:
> I have been spending time on IDB lately and wanted to give feedback as to the
> transaction auto-commit interface:
>
> I am trying to write a wrapper around IDB to match the interface of my
> server-side data store, which allows you to:
>
> 1.
On Aug 4, 2011 12:28 AM, "Joran Greef" wrote:
>
> > On 03 Aug 2011, at 7:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> >>>> "Note that reads are also blocked if the long-running transaction is
a READ_WRITE transaction."
> >>
> >> Is it acce
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:31:04 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
w
I support this.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne would like to publish a new WD of DOM Core and this is a Call for
> Consensus (CfC) to do so:
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
>
> Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates support for publis
I support this.
/ Jonas
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Anne would like to publish a new WD of XMLHttpRequest Level 2 and this is a
> Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/
>
> Agreeing with this proposal: a) indicates supp
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney wrote:
>> Third, is the order of attributes significant for XML namespace
>> declarations? eg does this:
>>
>> mean the same thing as
>>
>> ? If not, including namespaces in the attribute dic
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney
>>> wrote:
>>>>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Is there a reason to support namespaced attributes at all? They are
>> extremely rare, especially on the web.
>>
>> Ideally I'd like to deprecate them,
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
Using .responseType="text" you can read the contents of the data as
soon as it comes in, i.e. you don't have to wait for the "load" event
to read the data.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
>> there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" d
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:36 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> On 8/8/11 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> To solve this I propose we add two new values to .responseType:
>> "streaming-text" and "streaming-arraybuffer".
>
> I think this would be a very
For FileReader.abort(), we should only fire "abort" and "loadend"
events if there is a load currently in progress. If no load is in
progress then no events should be fired.
Basically the invariant we want to enforce is that for each
"loadstart" event there is one and exactly one "loadend" event as
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Vincent Scheib wrote:
> Re Rob:
>> Is there a need to provide mouse-locking on a per-element basis? It seems
>> to
>> me it would be enough for mouse-locking to be per-DOM-window (or
>> per-DOM-document) and deliver events to the focused element. This
>> simplifies
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> wrote:
>> If your implementation had to warp the mouse cursor on Windows to get
>> accurate delta information, the mouse position in the existing mouse
>> events would no longer be very
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>>> wrote:
>>>> If your
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>> If we expose delta informat
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Since advance is intended to always move the cursor forward, it seems we want
> to only support positive parameter values. Therefore, I would suggest we
> change its signature to:
>
> void advance (in unsigned int count);
>
> If a develop
On Friday, August 12, 2011, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> Assuming that we've created an object store with the auto-increment flag
set to true, what is the expected behavior when we reach some type of max
auto-increment value? Do we want to recycle and start again from zero or do
we stop at the largest
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2011 3:17 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Israel Hilerio
> > wrote:
> > > Since advance is intended to always move the cursor forward, it seems
> we
> &
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Chris Rogers wrote:
> Hi Jonas, sorry about the late reply - comments inline:
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Firefox 6 is going to add support for the the new responseType and
>>
I suspect it is. FileReader is currently shipping in at least Firefox
and Chrome and has been for a while.
/ Jonas
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Is it too late to change the constants to simple string values?
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:09 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > Yup. Though I think WebIDL will take care of the handling for when the
>> > author spec
On Monday, August 15, 2011, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 3:31 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>>
>> When the db is doing a commit after processing all records on the
>> transaction, if for some reason it fails, should we produce an error
>> event first and let the bubbling produce a transaction a
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Jim Jewett wrote:
> At http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/#key-construct within the text, it
> says that Arrays are the largest-valued keys: "For purposes of
> comparison, all Arrays are greater than all DOMString, Date and float
> values; all DOMString values are gre
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Monday, August 15, 2011, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>> > On 8/15/2011 3:31 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When the db is doing a
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Chris Rogers wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
>> there is one problem that we have run into with &quo
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Chris Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Also, it would be good to get Ian's opinion about this since he's
>> working on similar stuff with Web Sockets.
>
> Right now WebSockets only works with complete messages, there's no
> streaming su
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Adrian Bateman wrote:
>>
>> At Microsoft, we also prefer smaller more specific specifications for
>> all the same reasons that it makes sense to engineer software in
>> smaller, more modular parts.
>>
>> * It is easier to
der.getFile().
> Anne, would you be willing to massage the XHR2 spec to allow for the
> additional param in the case of a blob?
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Charles Pritchard
>> wrote:
>> > On 7
ilure
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Israel Hilerio
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> On Monday, August 15, 2011, Shawn Wilsher
>> wrote:
>> >> > On 8/15/2011 3:31 PM, Israel Hilerio wr
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Israel Hilerio wrote:
> I wanted to confirm with you that we want to add the following text to the
> IDBCursor.advance to keep it consistent with IDBCursor.continue:
>
> "Before this method returns, unless an exception was thrown, it sets the got
> value flag on
2011/8/23 Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo :
> Julian Reschke also wanted to specify the mime type
Why? Keeping in mind that you can (and arguably should) already
specify the mimetype when you create a blob. Both BlobBuilder.getBlob
and Blob.slice lets you specify a mimetype. And when you get a Blob
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:25:38 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Given that this seems to be the way people prefer to do it, I'm fine
>> with doing that for Gecko too. But we definitely would need to get
>
I agree with this, but it might be too late to make this change.
The problem is that if we returned an Array object, it would not have
a .item function, which the currently returned NodeList has.
I guess we could return a Array object and add a .item function to it.
/ Jonas
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I agree with this, but it might be too late to make this change.
>>
>> The problem is that if we returned an Array object, it would not have
>> a .item fu
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>> Prpoposed:
>>>
>>> FormData output with the x-www-form-urlencoded mime type:
>>> formData.toUrlEncodedBlob(xhr.send)
>>>
>>> If going down the blob path, these two would have the same end-result:
>>> formData.toMultipartBlob(xhr.send)
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Julien Richard-Foy
wrote:
>
> On 25 août 2011, at 08:33, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>> I agree with this, b
1 - 100 of 2094 matches
Mail list logo
