>> So you'd have to pass in the javascript expression as a string. This
>> certainly works but is more than a little ugly. It also complicates
>> the implementation a good bit since it now has to include a javascript
>> engine. Not a huge issue given that all browsers has one anyway, but
>> feels a
(still catching up on the rest of the long thread of API changes, will get back
to that a bit later)
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:34 PM
>> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Shawn Wilsher
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan
>> wrote:
>
> 3. The renaming of the property to 'url' also suggests that we should
> cease to consider an urn:uuid scheme.
>
I'm not sure that one fo
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/20/2010 7:34 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>
>> So far it's really just that joins are painful in IndexedDB. I'm working
>> on a blog post on this very topic though, and I'll be sure to point
>> everyone in this thread to it (I figure this
On 5/20/2010 7:34 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
So far it's really just that joins are painful in IndexedDB. I'm working
on a blog post on this very topic though, and I'll be sure to point
everyone in this thread to it (I figure this is useful stuff to get out
to a wider audience).
And honestly, I tho
Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
3. The renaming of the property to 'url' also suggests that we should
cease to consider an urn:uuid scheme.
I'm not sure that one follows from the other. The property's called 'url'
because that's what will be famil
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/20/2010 12:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> I additionally like the naming convention. The async interfaces is
>> probably the interface that people will use first. Additionally that
>> interface is available both to workers and to the
On 5/20/2010 12:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I additionally like the naming convention. The async interfaces is
probably the interface that people will use first. Additionally that
interface is available both to workers and to the main thread. So it
makes sense to give the async interface the simp
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Shawn Wilsher
> wrote:
> > On 5/20/2010 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >>
> >> As someone new to this API, I thought the naming used in the current
> >> draft is somewhat confusing. Consider the followin
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/20/2010 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>
>> As someone new to this API, I thought the naming used in the current
>> draft is somewhat confusing. Consider the following interfaces:
>>
>> IndexedDatabase
>> IndexedDatabaseRequest,
>> ID
On 5/20/2010 11:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
As someone new to this API, I thought the naming used in the current
draft is somewhat confusing. Consider the following interfaces:
IndexedDatabase
IndexedDatabaseRequest,
IDBDatabaseRequest,
IDBDatabase,
IDBRequest
Just by looking at this, it is pr
Hi Jonas,
>
>> A draft of the proposed API is here:
>
> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfs2skx2_4g3s5f857
>
As someone new to this API, I thought the naming used in the current
draft is somewhat confusing. Consider the following interfaces:
IndexedDatabase
IndexedDatabaseRequest,
IDBDatabaseRequ
*Further comments* related to the i18n review of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
Comment 15
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: RI
Location in reviewed document:
7.5.3. Examples of Usage [http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#example
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
Comment 20
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: S
Tracked by: RI
Location in reviewed document:
7.16.1 [http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#example-of-usage9]
Comment:
Note: I am m
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
Comment 19
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: RI
Location in reviewed document:
7.12.4 [http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#example-of-usage5]
Comment:
The Chinese
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
Comment 18
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: RI
Location in reviewed document:
7.5.3 [http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#examples-of-usage]
Comment:
The last exam
Comment from the i18n review of:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
Comment 17
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0907-widgets-pc/
Editorial/substantive: E
Tracked by: RI
Location in reviewed document:
Changes since last pubn [http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/]
Comment:
I propose:
On 5/20/2010 9:03 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
For what it's worth, one of the ideas behind object stores, rather
than rows+column stores, is to reduce the need for joins. I.e. in our
candy store example you could just as well store objects like:
{ id: 1, name: "Adam", sales: [{candyId: 1, date: "20
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/20/2010 2:55 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to do this!
>>
>> Can you maybe discuss the pros and cons you found in terms of implementing
>> something in WebSQLDatabase vs. IndexedDB? I'm mainly interested in
>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> It seems like there would be a lot of edge cases to define here. First
>>> of all, how is the value passed in to thi
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> It seems like there would be a lot of edge cases to define here. First
> >> of all, how is the value passed in
Hi,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> It seems like there would be a lot of edge cases to define here. First
>> of all, how is the value passed in to this expression? Do we say that
>> it's available through some "val
On 5/20/2010 2:55 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to do this!
Can you maybe discuss the pros and cons you found in terms of implementing
something in WebSQLDatabase vs. IndexedDB? I'm mainly interested in seeing
if there's any thing we can improve in IndexedDB that WebSQLDat
The draft minutes from the May 20 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/05/20-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before May 27 (the next Widget
Hi Michael,
thanks a lot for your review!
On May 19, 2010, at 18:32 , Michael Cooper wrote:
> The Last Call draft of the View Mode Media Feature states that it
> "Applies to: visual and tactile media types"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-view-mode-20100420/#the--view-mode--media-feature
>
>
+1 to carelessness.
Are we going to have a media feature catalogue in the future?
Thanks,
Marcin
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: public
Minor correction, the Last Call period ends 10 June.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG
On May 17, 2010, at 11:03 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Below is a request to the WebApps WG for comments on 3 LCWDs produced
> by the XML Security WG:
>
> [[
> This is
Giles,
On 5/20/10 5:43 AM, ext Giles Hogben wrote:
Apologies - I should have explained a little more what we are looking for from
the WG and you are right that some of the questions are out of scope - not
answering all the questions is fine. In response to your mail:
1. I thought that some im
Thanks for taking the time to do this!
Can you maybe discuss the pros and cons you found in terms of implementing
something in WebSQLDatabase vs. IndexedDB? I'm mainly interested in seeing
if there's any thing we can improve in IndexedDB that WebSQLDatabase already
does well.
J
On Wed, May 19,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > Interesting you'd bring this up. Andrei and I were jus
Hi Arthur, All,
Apologies - I should have explained a little more what we are looking for from
the WG and you are right that some of the questions are out of scope - not
answering all the questions is fine. In response to your mail:
1. I thought that some important aspects of Question 1 (the mos
31 matches
Mail list logo
