Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

Whomever adds delete/continue back to the spec needs to inline into the spec an explanation of why it's ok per ES5. Most (all) of us grew up pre ES5 and *believe* that they're truly reserved keywords and that what you're doing is invalid. So without inlining the explanation into the spec, you're

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

There seems to be agreement that delete() is acceptable. Could you file a bug? / Jonas On Monday, July 5, 2010, Kris Zyp wrote: > > > > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 > PM, Pablo Castro

Re: [IndexedDB] Existence checking

That would do the trick, yes. Thanks for pointing it out, all my w3 spec reading skills are belong to you. On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: >  On 7/5/2010 3:19 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote: >> >> There are a couple of ways to do this: > > I think you missed one.  IDBDatabase has a

[Bug 10088] New: The spec does not define what happens if an object store is modified while a cursor is iterating it.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10088 Summary: The spec does not define what happens if an object store is modified while a cursor is iterating it. Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version:

Re: [IndexedDB] Should .add/.put/.update throw when called in read-only transaction?

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: Filed http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10064 >>> >>>

Re: [IndexedDB] Cursors and modifications

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Pablo Castro >>> wrote: From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro > wrote: We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled

Re: [IndexedDB] Existence checking

On 7/5/2010 3:19 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote: There are a couple of ways to do this: I think you missed one. IDBDatabase has a property objectStores [1] that is an array of object stores. Additionally, IDBObjectStore has a property called indexNames [2] that is an array of indexes for the obje

WebIDL exceptions

Is there any agreement on how exceptions in WebIDL should map to ECMAScript objects? I can't see anything in WebIDL to specify this. I would have expected each exception type to have an interface object and an interface prototype object, both containing the constants for the exception numbers. T

[cors] Allow-Credentials vs Allow-Origin: * on image elements?

Hi all-- I'm trying to understand one of the example use cases in the CORS specification and how the various rules about credentials apply, and I'm wondering whether there's an issue to resolve. In the "Not tainting the canvas element" example at http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#use-

[IndexedDB] Existence checking

Hi all. I have a query/suggestion regarding the current spec for IndexedDB. Currently there doesn't appear to be any specific way to check existence of things like indexes and object stores. One scenario this may be important could be a site which allows optional offline functionality, for example