On 04/21/2011 01:10 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh
Thanks for the feedback!
Yes, I agree early and thorough review is needed and my expectation
was/is that those vested in a spec and its test suite would actively
participate in the creation and review of tests, regardless of whether
that function was documented or not. I will add some related
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
The open method description in the IDBFactory talks about setting the
source of the IDBRequest to no
As we reviewed the actions we [the UA] could take in a variety of scenarios,
tying the connect-ability to the top-level domain was the most predictable for
web authors.
IE9's privacy feature [1] blocks network requests to any domain on a user's
filter list (Tracking Protection List) when the
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but I don't see any new
privacy-leak vectors here. Without Shared Workers, 3rdparty.com can
just hold open a communication channel to its server and shuttle
information between the iframes on A.com and B.com that way.
That does
On Mon, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Looks great to me. Remember that we need to make both .transaction and
.setVersion throw if called within the callback from either of them.
/ Jonas
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Israel Hilerio isra...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I've
In the changeset I commited on 20 April, I had this change for the last
sentence of step 4 of the description of the lifetime of a transaction in
section 3.1.7: [1]
Previous:
Similarly, the isolation mode ensure that it doesn't matter which order
requests placed against different transactions
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Eliot Graff eliot.gr...@microsoft.com wrote:
In the changeset I commited on 20 April, I had this change for the last
sentence of step 4 of the description of the lifetime of a transaction in
section 3.1.7: [1]
Previous:
Similarly, the isolation mode ensure
What we're trying to convey is that two requests placed against different can
execute in any order, but that this doesn't matter, and the isolation mode
and the transaction scheduling ensures that.
Thanks, that makes sense. Any objection to using your phraseology?
There is no guarantee
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12438
Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
10 matches
Mail list logo
