On 5/9/14, 12:26 AM, Jungkee Song wrote:
Right. We're defining an AsyncMap interface [1] which Cache interface
and CacheList interface are based off of. AsyncMap isn't spec'd yet in
any place than in the .ts file. A difficulty encountered is we don't
have any IDL construct for this yet. Any sugge
On May 9, 2014 1:16 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
>
> In particular, given that get() wants to return a Promise, why do we want
values() to return a list of Cache objects synchronously?
>
> Similar for keys(): if has() needs to be async, then how can has() be
sync.
>
Exactly. both values() and keys(
From: Jungkee Song [mailto:jungk...@gmail.com]
> Right. We're defining an AsyncMap interface [1] which Cache interface and
> CacheList interface are based off of. AsyncMap isn't spec'd yet in any place
> than in the .ts file. A difficulty encountered is we don't have any IDL
> construct for th
On May 9, 2014 12:18 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
>
> I'm looking at
https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/index.html#cache-listhere.
>
> The point of [MapClass] (assuming [MapClass] stays in the WebIDL spec at
all) is to declare interfaces that quack enough like Map that i
On 5/9/14, 12:14 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
As an aside, I filed https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/11 regarding
[MapClass].
Yeah, agreed. ArrayClass makes sense, because the Array methods are
generic. But MapClass as currently specced just doesn't.
-Boris
Agreed, this was odd to me.
As an aside, I filed https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/11 regarding
[MapClass].
-Original Message-
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 23:15
To: public-webapps
Subject: It doesn't make sense to use [MapClass] fo
In particular, given that get() wants to return a Promise, why do we
want values() to return a list of Cache objects synchronously?
Similar for keys(): if has() needs to be async, then how can has() be sync.
-Boris
On 5/9/14, 12:05 AM, Jungkee Song wrote:
Addressed:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/commit/0035befac6c49df5b2e7a171ce26aa96c516a32d
Thanks!
-Boris
On May 9, 2014 12:19 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote:
>
> IDL arrays are not really supported by any UA, and it's not clear to me
that any plan to do it. The trend has been toward using ES arrays instead
(which typically means IDL sequences).
>
> At first glance, every use of IDL arrays in service work
IDL arrays are not really supported by any UA, and it's not clear to me
that any plan to do it. The trend has been toward using ES arrays
instead (which typically means IDL sequences).
At first glance, every use of IDL arrays in service workers could in
fact be a sequence without causing any
I'm looking at
https://slightlyoff.github.io/ServiceWorker/spec/service_worker/index.html#cache-list
here.
The point of [MapClass] (assuming [MapClass] stays in the WebIDL spec at
all) is to declare interfaces that quack enough like Map that it makes
sense to have them be instanceof Map and h
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25567
Morrita Hajime changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24043
Dimitri Glazkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
The First Public Working Draft of Service Workers was published today:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-service-workers-20140508/>
Congrats Jungkee and Alex and thanks to Philippe for preparing the `pub
ready` version.
-AB
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> > The answer to that question, IMO, is no. It's not safe to use custom
> > attributes without 'data-' if one wanted to write a forward compatible
> HTML
> > document.
>
> Note that
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 20:03, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > Requiring a dash is pretty ugly. I would allow any attribute, and
> > we'll just have to be careful when introducing new global ones.
>
> I think the ship HMS Ugly has already sailed, given a dash is compul
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25610
Bug ID: 25610
Summary: [imports]: Want an informative section about
implications of how CSP + Imports is defined
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> The answer to that question, IMO, is no. It's not safe to use custom
> attributes without 'data-' if one wanted to write a forward compatible HTML
> document.
Note that the question is scoped to custom elements, not elements in general.
It
On 7 May 2014 20:03, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Requiring a dash is pretty ugly. I would allow any attribute, and we'll
> just have to be careful when introducing new global ones.
I think the ship HMS Ugly has already sailed, given a dash is
compulsory for the names of custom elements. Also, requiri
19 matches
Mail list logo
