On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pablo Castro <pablo.cas...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM > Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline > February 2 > >>> 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 designing for outdated technology is a poor approach. > > I don't think there is, just wanted to avoid imposing it. If you think it's > really important then let's change it back to delete assuming other folks are > good with it.
I just checked with our JS team and we'll implement enough of ES5 in Firefox 4 that this won't be a problem for us. / Jonas