On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au
wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that is
planned
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au
wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Excellent! I think that should mean that no changes are needed to the
IndexedDB spec at all. I can't think of any instances where we use specific
interface names while still accepting null values.
/ Jonas
This implies the bug can be
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Excellent! I think that should mean that no changes are needed to the
IndexedDB spec at all. I can't think of any instances where we use specific
interface names
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Did you come up with a conclusion on how to handle null violations:
* Bug 9653 [1] - How to handle nullable violations is not specified.
I looked for previous threads and couldn't find anything.
It seems to me we
Jonas Sicking:
However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that
is planned to be brought back? It seems like a useful feature to
avoid having to define in prose this rather common requirement. We
should also
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Jonas Sicking:
However it appears that that extended attribute is not present in
newer versions of the WebIDL spec. Cameron, is this something that
is planned to be brought back? It seems like a useful feature to
avoid
