-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote: > >>> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org >>> [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kris Zyp >>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Seeking >>> pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February >>> 2 > >>> I see that in the trunk version of the spec [1] that delete() >>> was changed to remove(). I thought we had established that >>> there is no reason to make this change. Is anyone seriously >>> expecting to have an implementation prior to or without ES5's >>> contextually unreserved keywords? I would greatly prefer >>> delete(), as it is much more consistent with standard DB and >>> REST terminology. > > My concern is that it seems like taking an unnecessary risk. I > understand the familiarity aspect (and I like delete() better as > well), but to me that's not a strong enough reason to use it and > potentially cause trouble in some browser. > So there is a real likelyhood of a browser implementation that will predate it's associated JS engine's upgrade to ES5? Feeling a "concern" isn't really much of technical argument on it's own, and designing for outdated technology is a poor approach. - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwRd04ACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAwyegCfQlUO66XszuZeZtFVNrfBjV56 eRIAoLDjGDTdRzvIeLtfRHFnDhopFKGv =ZhrJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----