Very much appreciated. I've added this and the other 4 items from Ms2ger to https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17649 for tracking purposes, since there was some overlap with items in there already.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Ms2ger <ms2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > From the examples in the IDB specification (in [1], for example) and from > existing implementations, it appears that the functions on the IDBKeyRange > interface (only, lowerBound, upperBound and bound) should be static. > However, there is no actual normative requirement to that effect; instead, > the IDL snippet requires those functions to only be callable on IDBKeyRange > instances. [2] > > If this is caused by a bug in ReSpec, I suggest that either ReSpec is > fixed or the spec moves away from ReSpec to a tool that doesn't limit what > can be specified. In any case, an insufficient tool can not be used as an > excuse for an incorrect specification, and I doubt we could publish a Rec > without this shortcoming being addressed. > > HTH > Ms2ger > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/** > Overview.html#key-generator-**concept<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#key-generator-concept> > [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/** > Overview.html#idl-def-**IDBKeyRange<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#idl-def-IDBKeyRange> > >