Re: [IndexedDB] Interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations

2010-05-06 Thread Nikunj Mehta
On May 4, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: The interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations is giving us trouble. I need to elaborate a little to explain the problem. You can perform operations in IndexedDB with or without an explicitly started

Re: [IndexedDB] Interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations

2010-05-06 Thread Nikunj Mehta
On May 5, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: On 5/5/2010 1:09 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: I'd also worry that if creating the transaction were completely transparent to the user that they might not think to close it either. (I'm mainly thinking about copy-and-paste coders here.) I should

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-05-06 Thread Nikunj Mehta
Dumi, I am not sure what the API expectations are for different levels of durability of storage APIs. Is it: 1. Options passed to individual APIs selecting durability level 2. Separate API calls for different durability level 3. Allocations occurring through markup requiring user actions which

Re: [widgets] WARP default policy

2010-05-06 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Marcos Caceres marc...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2010, at 10:40, Robin Berjon wrote: On May 4, 2010, at 19:29 , Scott Wilson wrote: I've just been reading through the WARP spec

Re: [IndexedDB] Interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations

2010-05-06 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote: On May 4, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: The interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations is giving us trouble. I need to elaborate a little to explain the problem. You can

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-05-06 Thread Jeremy Orlow
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta nik...@o-micron.com wrote: Dumi, I am not sure what the API expectations are for different levels of durability of storage APIs. Is it: 1. Options passed to individual APIs selecting durability level 2. Separate API calls for different

Re: Minor DigSig feedback

2010-05-06 Thread Frederick Hirsch
Andreas Thanks, good catch. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On May 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM, ext Andreas Kuehne wrote: Hi all, just a minor comment found by build a test case : Section 7.1. Common Constraints for Signature Generation and Validation 1. [...]

Re: Minor DigSig feedback

2010-05-06 Thread Frederick Hirsch
in the proposed editors draft [1] this is section 10.2 item #3 I suggest we change 3a from The URI attribute ... to be For references that are not same-document references, the URI attribute... regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On May 5, 2010, at 11:41 AM, ext Andreas Kuehne

Re: Minor DigSig feedback

2010-05-06 Thread Marcos Caceres
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote: in the proposed editors draft [1] this is section 10.2 item #3 I suggest we change 3a from The URI attribute ... to be For references that are not same-document references, the URI attribute... Done! thanks!

[widgets] Draft minutes from 6 May 2010 voice conf

2010-05-06 Thread Arthur Barstow
The draft minutes from the May 6 Widgets voice conference are available at the following and copied below: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/06-wam-minutes.html WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send them to the public-webapps mail list before May 13 (the next

Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate

2010-05-06 Thread Stewart Brodie
Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: I believe the test suite is nearly ready [1]. As I mentioned last year, Minefield currently passes 100% of the test suite. However, this has not yet shipped in a release build. I assume it will make it into the next major release after the

Re: Status of Selectors API Level 1 Candidate

2010-05-06 Thread Boris Zbarsky
On 5/6/10 10:44 AM, Stewart Brodie wrote: Taking the null, explicit undefined and implicit undefined test cases together, I don't think I've got any two browsers here that behave the same way. :-/ Yes, that's why we can't exit CR. ;) Note that part of the issue here is that the spec

[IndexedDB] Changes to IDBRequest and specification of the success and error events

2010-05-06 Thread ben turner
Hi folks, We've been playing around with the async API and have made some changes to the IDBRequest interface that we'd like feedback on and hopefully inclusion in the spec. Here's what we have now: interface IDBRequest : EventTarget { void abort(); const unsigned short INITIAL = 0;

Re: [IndexedDB] Interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations

2010-05-06 Thread ben turner
Hey folks, I'm working with Shawn on the Firefox implementation. Here's our idea as of now, would you all please comment about things you like or dislike? Hopefully this follows the gist of the comments shared already. interface IndexedDatabaseRequest { IDBRequest open(in DOMString name,

Re: [IndexedDB] Interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple operations

2010-05-06 Thread ben turner
Hey folks, I'm working with Shawn on the Firefox implementation. Here's our idea as of now, would you all please comment about things you like or dislike? Hopefully this follows the gist of the comments shared already. interface IndexedDatabaseRequest { IDBRequest open(in DOMString name,

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

2010-05-06 Thread Dumitru Daniliuc
nikunj, i agree with what jeremy said. i think we need each storage API to be able to specify what kind of storage it needs (and i'm trying to add an optional flag for that to WebSQLDatabases, which is your option #1). in addition to that, i think we need an API that would allow an app to request

[cors] Simplify CORS Headers (ISSUE-89)

2010-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
Here is a brief proposal for how we could simplify the current set of CORS headers. We can use this thread to evaluate whether it is worth breaking with what Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and IE are doing now. And whether all parties are willing to change their supported syntax in due course.

Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

2010-05-06 Thread Mark S. Miller
XML is also a misnomer. And HTTP is confusing since it also works over https. At least we agree on Request. On Apr 21, 2010 12:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:37:54 +0900, Mark S... I agree that

[cors] Set-Cookie / Referer / NTML / cache

2010-05-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:51:16 +0900, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Tyler Close wrote: This unique origin would still need to discard Set-Cookie response headers to prevent the accumulation of credentials associated with the unique origin. It would also need