On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
I expect this message to only have editorial comments. However, I'm
not fond of April 16th, this month is tax month and I still need to
file.
Transaction
A
Hi All,
It was recently (yesterday) pointed out to me that we let a bad
spec-bug slip through for File.slice. It doesn't match the argument
semantics of Array.slice which can be very confusing for developers.
In Array.slice the second argument is the index of the last item to be
included in the
On 4/12/11 2:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
It was recently (yesterday) pointed out to me that we let a bad
spec-bug slip through for File.slice. It doesn't match the argument
semantics of Array.slice which can be very confusing for developers.
In Array.slice the second argument is the
On 4/11/11 1:39 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathana...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional
burden on the developer (to catch, for example).
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 4/11/11 1:39 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathana...@mozilla.com
wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com wrote:
In general, I'm averse to throwing, since I think it puts an additional
burden on
File.slice was first supported in Firefox 4.
- Kyle
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jian Li jia...@chromium.org wrote:
The biggest concern is that this is a breaking change and quite a few web
applications have already been using it. As far as I know, File.slice(start,
length) has been
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jian Li jia...@chromium.org wrote:
The biggest concern is that this is a breaking change and quite a few web
applications have already been using it. As far as I know, File.slice(start,
length) has been supported as early as Chrome 6 and Safari 5. Also Firefox 3
We're using ArrayBuffer... It's been through a few changes of its own relating
to slice.
I think they just went the route of renaming the method.
-Charles
On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
Indeed, it appeared in FF 4 which was shipped end of March, so if
Taking back the claim about Safari :-) It doesn't have File.slice indeed.
Sorry about that.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
Indeed, it appeared in FF 4 which was shipped end of March, so if it was
only FF API, it would be fine to change it since it's
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
Indeed, it appeared in FF 4 which was shipped end of March, so if it was
only FF API, it would be fine to change it since it's only been official for
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
File.slice is currently shipped by Chrome and Firefox 4. I would be
fine with fixing this in Firefox 4.0.1, however that only makes sense
if the chrome folks are fine with fixing it in their implementation.
bb = new
On 4/12/11 5:27 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
File.slice is currently shipped by Chrome and Firefox 4. I would be
fine with fixing this in Firefox 4.0.1, however that only makes sense
if the chrome folks are fine with
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
File.slice is currently shipped by Chrome and Firefox 4. I would be
fine with fixing this in Firefox 4.0.1, however that only makes sense
if the chrome
On 4/12/11 4:45 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
We're using ArrayBuffer... It's been through a few changes of its own
relating to slice.
I think they just went the route of renaming the method.
To be clear, here you're referring to the *.subarray method of TypedArray:
On 4/12/11 2:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It appears that Opera too implements File.slice. Would be great to
know for how long it's been implemented.
The first public build [1] with File.slice was made available last week.
It's only been officially supported as of today, however, with the
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Mike Taylor miketa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/11 2:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It appears that Opera too implements File.slice. Would be great to
know for how long it's been implemented.
The first public build [1] with File.slice was made available last
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Mike Taylor miketa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/11 2:05 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It appears that Opera too implements File.slice. Would be great to
know for how long it's been implemented.
Hello All,
In the current FileAPI Writer spec a BlobBuilder can be used to build a
series of blobs like so:
var bb = BlobBuilder();
bb.append(foo);
var foo = bb.getBlob();
bb.append(bar);
var bar = bb.getBlob();
foo.size; // == 3
bar.size; // == 6
My concern with this pattern is
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Kyle Huey m...@kylehuey.com wrote:
Hello All,
In the current FileAPI Writer spec a BlobBuilder can be used to build a
series of blobs like so:
var bb = BlobBuilder();
bb.append(foo);
var foo = bb.getBlob();
bb.append(bar);
var bar =
Darin's position is leaning toward not breaking compatibility with what
Chrome has shipped for a while. That's one consideration. It can't be the only
consideration, or there's no point having a discussion and whatever Chrome
ships first is an instant standard.
When we talked to Kenneth Arnold
It can be more then it looks though - if site detects File.slice and then
uses it, it will automatically pick up FF and Opera now because the method
now is defined. But the code is assuming the 'length' semantics of the
second parameter. So if the site is using recommended method of detection,
the
I just realized that string.slice also follows the pattern of Array.slice.
I really think we need to fix this to not cause a very unfortunate
inconsistency. I'd rather take some short term pain rather than foist
this upon developers forever. We're also all guilty of releasing
unprefixed code for
Dmitry Titov dim...@chromium.org wrote:
It can be more then it looks though - if site detects File.slice and then
uses it, it will automatically pick up FF and Opera now because the method
now is defined.
FF and Opera just added File slice support, IIUC. For Firefox at least we are
willing to
I strongly prefer a rename as done with subarray in the typed arrays spec. It's
straightforward on feature detection, as it's just an if [exists] statement.
On Apr 12, 2011, at 7:03 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I just realized that string.slice also follows the pattern of
Lachlan Hunt:
I reviewed WebIDL again, and I think I've started to understand the
difference between sequenceT and T[] now.
As I understand it, the algorithm to convert an ECMAScript object to
an IDL sequence should work with any object that has a length
property and indexed values
On 4/10/11 4:32 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The same issue will occur with any new selector that gets added in the
future. The only real difference between this and any other is that
support for :scope will inherently imply refElement support.
Indeed.
I'm not entirely sure what you consider to
On 4/10/11 4:30 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Would it be useful, and is it possible to define the refElements
parameter to accept any object that contains a .length and indexed
properties, just like a JQuery object?
Looks like this already got answered, but yes, sequenceNode should
make that work.
On 4/10/11 12:02 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I've updated and simplified the spec to handle the above case using the
parameter sequenceNode. I still need to update the prose to say that
while the collections may contain any Node, only Element nodes are added
to the list of contextual reference
Lachlan Hunt:
OK. Then I'm not sure what the practical difference between the
Element[] or sequenceElement would be then, nor which one to use.
Boris Zbarsky:
I'm not either. That's why Cameron is cced.
If you are choosing between those two for the type of an argument,
and you don’t have
On 04/12/2011 05:33 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Kyle Hueym...@kylehuey.com wrote:
Hello All,
In the current FileAPI Writer spec a BlobBuilder can be used to build a
series of blobs like so:
var bb = BlobBuilder();
bb.append(foo);
var foo = bb.getBlob();
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Darin's position is leaning toward not breaking compatibility with what
Chrome has shipped for a while. That's one consideration. It can't be the
only consideration, or there's no point having a discussion and whatever
Cameron McCormack:
then the only difference is that with Element[] you can distinguish
between null and an array of length 1, while with sequenceElement you
can’t.
Length 0, not 1.
--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
33 matches
Mail list logo
