Re: [IndexedDB] Closing on bug 9903 (collations)

On 1 June 2011 01:37, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com wrote: -Original Message- From: simetri...@gmail.com [mailto:simetri...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh Gregor Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:49 PM On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro pablo.cas...@microsoft.com

Status of URL Interface?

Hi, There was discussion some time ago about specifying a URL interface, based I think on the draft proposal at https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1r_VTFKApVOaNIkocrg0z-t7lZgzisTuGTXkdzAk4gLUhl=enpli=1 Is this something that the Web Apps Working Group is planning to work on? If not, does

Re: Status of URL Interface?

Dom - WebApps' current charter does not directly include this API and I don't think the charter includes any deliverables that could directly rationalize Adam's spec. However, if someone interprets the charter differently, then please speak up. Adam - what is the status and plan for the URL

[Bug 12090] WEB STORAGE It would be nice to have one Storage object that you could place wherever you want. You could simply set a parameter local or define it as shared and set path to the serv

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12090 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 12111] spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 10601] [IndexedDB] Need some way to create IDB events?

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10601 Eliot Graff eliot...@microsoft.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug 12111] spec for Storage object getItem(key) method does not match implementation behavior

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12111 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+w3c...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

Re: Using ArrayBuffer as payload for binary data to/from Web Workers

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Tue, 31 May 2011, Kenneth Russell wrote: Jonas's suggestion of adding another argument to postMessage, and Gregg's generalization to declare it as an array of objects to be transferred rather than copied, sounds good. We

[Bug 10640] Allow for non-nullable objects

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10640 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson i...@hixie.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED