This is now fixed in editor drafts. I still need to add the
non-normative text for authors. I'll try to work up some wording this
weekend.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:34:40 +0100, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We have several internal and external teams implementing solutions
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:50:22 +0100, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
That is certainly one point of view. However, we've been collecting
features for a v2 since before June of 2011 [1]. To that effect, we've
had several email exchanges between the WG members where we agree to
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
It is our belief based on internal feedback and external partner feedback
that the technology will remain un-deployed and in draft form if we continue
to make changes like this.
Yes it might take a little longer, but
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:56:05 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Just to be clear. We've all been here long enough to know that Last
Call is not what matters, what matters is when implementations ship
and when enough content is authored that making incompatible changes
will break too
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:56:05 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Just to be clear. We've all been here long enough to know that Last
Call is not what matters, what matters is when implementations ship
and when
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:33:15 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Last I think I heard it was in relation to renaming CORS headers which
also is in WD stage.
I have proposed renaming them if that is what you mean; people objected.
We could certainly try to make this change when
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:34:40 +0100, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We have several internal and external teams implementing solutions on
IndexedDB for IE10 and Win8. They are looking for a finalized spec
sooner than later to ensure the stability of their implementations.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:34:40 +0100, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We have several internal and external teams implementing solutions on
IndexedDB for IE10 and Win8. They are looking for a finalized spec
I agree on the values. +1
--
Sent from my N9, excuse the top posting
On 27.02.12 16:17 Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:34:40 +0100, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
We have several internal
Also note that however painful an API change may seem now, it will only get
more painful the longer it is put off.
- James
On Feb 27, 2012 7:50 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
I agree on the values. +1
--
Sent from my N9, excuse the top posting
On 27.02.12 16:17 Jonas Sicking
Anne,
That is certainly one point of view. However, we've been collecting features
for a v2 since before June of 2011 [1]. To that effect, we've had several
email exchanges between the WG members where we agree to defer work for v2 (see
[2], [3], etc.). That tells me that our working group
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com wrote:
Anne,
That is certainly one point of view. However, we’ve been collecting
features for a v2 since before June of 2011 [1]. To that effect, we’ve had
several email exchanges between the WG members where we agree
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:34:40 +0100, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I believe we can discuss this proposal and others at a later time as
part of IDB v2.
There's no v2 on the web. We still live with the decisions made by browser
engineering teams years ago. How tablediv is
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:27:27 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yes! I would love to make this change.
This is my main peeve with the API as it stands.
Cool! :D
I even think that implementations could remove support for the numbers
by keeping the constants but have them defined to
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:47:56 +0100, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:27:27 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Yes! I would love to make this change.
This is my main peeve with the API as it stands.
Cool! :D
I even think that implementations
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:09:20 +0100, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
I think if we want the end result to be strings only, the best way to
get there is for everyone to remove support for constants and numbers at
the same time as they implement support for strings.
Agreed. Note that Web
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:47:56 +0100, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:27:27 +0100, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
Yes! I would love to make this change.
This is my main peeve with
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
I propose that we change the numeric constants to enumerated strings in
the IndexedDB spec.
Reasoning is echoing the reasoning that came up for WebRTC:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-script-coord/**
Yes! I would love to make this change.
This is my main peeve with the API as it stands.
I even think that implementations could remove support for the numbers
by keeping the constants but have them defined to return string
values. I.e.
db.transaction([store], IDBTransaction.READ_WRITE);
would
Oh, but I should add that I think it's fine for implementations to
keep support for the numbers for a transition period if they so
desire.
/ Jonas
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Yes! I would love to make this change.
This is my main peeve with the API
21 matches
Mail list logo
