Since the CfC to stop work on DataCache was agreed, to make this status
clear to anyone that reads this document via w3.org/TR/DataCache/, we
should publish a WG Note for this document and clearly indicate work on
the spec has stopped - just like we did with the Web SQL Database spec:
On 3/9/2011 09:45:51 Shawn Wilsher wrote:
That makes sense since the original proposal was heavily based on BDB.
It's shifted a bit as we have made tweaks to improve it for the web.
Cheers
Shawn
I agree. If I may add my two cents worth: one thing that IDB has not yet
learned from BDB
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Joran Greef jo...@ronomon.com wrote:
On 3/9/2011 09:45:51 Shawn Wilsher wrote:
That makes sense since the original proposal was heavily based on BDB.
It's shifted a bit as we have made tweaks to improve it for the web.
Cheers
Shawn
I agree. If I may add
On 16 Mar 2011, at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
It seems like you are suggesting pretty big changes. The best way to
do this is likely to start a new thread (as the changes you are
suggesting isn't limited to Compound and multiple keys), and put a
draft proposal there.
Not necessarily.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
A couple of points I noticed while briefly perusing the File API specs:
* Blob.size has no conformance criteria (no musts). It could return a
random number
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12321
Summary: Add compound keys to IndexedDB
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
On 3/16/2011 4:34 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Eric Uhrhaneer...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
A couple of points I noticed while briefly perusing the File API specs:
* Blob.size has no conformance criteria (no
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 3/16/2011 4:34 PM, Eric Uhrhane wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Eric Uhrhaneer...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
A couple of points I noticed while
We've talked about this off and on for a while now, but given that we've
made a decision on how to handle compound keys, I think we can finally come
to closure on this.
There are several basic use cases.
1) You have a names field in the object that you're storing and you want
to be able to search
