I don't feel strongly.
I'll file a bug for our proposed solution.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
convert to undefined and null (which is the default behavior in WebIDL,
I believe). I feel somewhat
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
interpret this as the argument not being passed in or simply let them
convert to undefined and null
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10349
One quesiton though: if they pass in null or undefined, do we want to
interpret this as the
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59 AM
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:59
That sounds great to me.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Pablo Castro
pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote:
From:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Given that open() is one of those functions that are likely to grow in
parameters over time, I wonder if we should consider taking an object as
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
I am fine with removing it.
-Ben
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Andrei Popescu andr...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
description argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And,
On 8/9/2010 1:13 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
While implementing IDBFactory::open(), we thought that the
description argument is optional but we were surprised to find out
it's actually mandatory. Is there any reason not to make this argument
optional? And, assuming it is optional, should the
I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is actually
already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there.
When talking to Andrei earlier tonight I thought we'd probably want to make
it optional, but
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure opening a database with a different description is actually
already specified: the new one takes precedent. Take a look at the
algorithm for database opening; I'm pretty sure it's there.
When talking to
19 matches
Mail list logo
