What is the minimum that can be in IDB? I am guessing the following:
1. Sorted key-opaque value transactional store
2. Lookup of keys by values (or parts thereof)
#1 is essential.
#2 is unavoidable because you would want to efficiently manipulate values by
values as opposed to values by key.
I k
It is interesting that on the day when I published the WG Note for
DataCache, we are having this conversation. Just goes to show that there is
more than just a couple of us interested in finding a solution to this
problem.
Like all things Web, incremental is better than revolutionary. However, I a
Hi Pablo,
I will reassign this bug to Eliott.
Nikunj
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
> btw - the bug is assigned to Nikunj right now but I think that's just because
> of an editing glitch. Nikunj please let me know if you were working on it,
> otherwise I'll just submit the ch
I am glad to see this after having brought this up last year at TPAC. I support
this.
Nikunj
On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> [...] suggested the spec be published as a "Working Group Note" and this
>> is Call for Consensus to do.
topics will be error
> handling and arrays/compound-keys/etc.
>
> J
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> Propose:
>
> can implementors provide an update on their implementation status/plans?
>
> Nikunj
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jer
Propose:
can implementors provide an update on their implementation status/plans?
Nikunj
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Great list!
>
> I propose we start with the various keys issues (I think we can make a lot of
> progress quickly and it's somewhat fresh on our minds), go
On Aug 24, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Also, the spec still has "[NoInterfaceObject]" for a lot of the interfaces.
> I believe Nikunj did this by accident and was supposed to revert, but I guess
> he didn't? I should file a bug to get these removed, right?
>
Andrei made changes
On Aug 12, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
> We currently have two read-only transaction modes, READ_ONLY and
> SNAPSHOT_READ. As we map this out to implementation we ran into various
> questions that made me wonder whether we have the right set of modes.
>
> It seems that READ_ONLY and
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
&g
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:59 AM
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Orlow
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:41 AM
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Thu
On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would
>> produce more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
>> On Jul 7, 2010, at 12
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> One of our main points was to make getting objectStore
> objects a synchronous operation as to avoid having to nest multiple
> levels of asynchronous calls. Compare
>
> var req = db.openObjectStore("foo", trans);
On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 7/6/2010 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> To begin with, 10052 shuts down the "users" of the database completely when
>> only one is changing its structure, i.e., adding or removing an object
>> store. Ho
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:38 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>>> O
Andrei,
Pejorative remarks about normative text don't help anyone. If you think that
the spec text is not clear or that you are unable to interpret it, please say
so. The text about dynamic scope has been around for long enough and no one so
far mentioned a problem with them.
Nikunj
On Jul 7,
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
2. Provide a catalog object that can be used to atomically add/remove
object stores and indexes as well as modify version.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a catalog object doesn't really provide any
>>> functionality over the proposal in bu
We would not make dynamic transactions be the default since they would produce
more concurrency than static scoped transactions, correct?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> Unless we're planning on making all
>>> transactions dynamic (I hope not), locks have to be grabbed when
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
> > expanding IndexedDB. The reason I have not implemented them yet is
>
Hi folks,
I would like to propose adding Jonas Sicking to the list of editors
for the IndexedDB spec. Many of you have seen the tremendous amount of
work Jonas has done to assist in finalizing the asynchronous API as
well as providing implementation feedback.
I hope the WG will support this chang
Hi folks,
There are several unimplemented proposals on strengthening and
expanding IndexedDB. The reason I have not implemented them yet is
because I am not convinced they are necessary in toto. Here's my
attempt at explaining why. I apologize in advance for not responding
to individual proposals
Hi Jeremy,
I have been able to push my changes (after more Mercurial server problems) just
now. I reopened 9790 because Andrei's commit made IDBCursor and IDBObjectStore
constants unavailable from the global object. After all this, you should be
able to do the following for your need below:
my
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> (specifically answering out of context)
>>
>> On May 17, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>> 9. IDBKeyRanges are created using functio
cking wrote:
> Could someone provide more context here. I don't understand any of
> what is being talked about. Is this a proposal for a new feature?
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> I would like to confirm the requirements f
Would be useful to bear in mind the semantics of the two methods:
1. If storing a record in an index that allows multiple values for a single key,
a. add is going to store an extra record for an existing key, if it exists.
b. put is also going to store a new record for the existing key, if it
I would like to confirm the requirements for posting list and inverted index
support in IndexedDB. To that extent, here is a short list ordered by
importance. Please let me know if I have missed anything important.
1. Store sorted runs of terms and their occurrences in documents along with a
pa
uild I'm
> messing with the cursor has an update method that I find highly useful
> and efficient.
>
> -Mikeal
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2010, at
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 9:43 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> There are three theoretical modes as you say. However, the second mode does
>> not exist in practice. If you must overwrite, then you know that the record
>> exists and hence
On May 10, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/7/2010 1:32 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Per the current spec [1], noOverwrite defaults to false for put
>> operations on an object store. Ben Turner and I have been
>> discus
(specifically answering out of context)
On May 17, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 9. IDBKeyRanges are created using functions on IndexedDatabaseRequest.
> We couldn't figure out how the old API allowed you to create a range
> object without first having a range object.
Hey Jonas,
What
Hi all,
I am trying to provide access to constants defined in IndexedDB interfaces. For
example:
interface IDBRequest : EventTarget {
void abort ();
const unsigned short INITIAL = 0;
const unsigned short LOADING = 1;
const unsigned short DONE = 2;
readonly attribute unsigned s
Also, we need to redirect from the CVS version of the draft to the Mercurial
version, since we are going to be maintaining only the Mercurial version. This
version can be found at:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Nikunj
On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrot
On Jun 7, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>>
>>> 3. Editors: Nikunj Mehta (Invited Expert), Eliot Graf (Microsoft)
>>> 4. Spec do
We have started using Mercurial for IndexedDB. I would like to propose moving
the IndexedDB spec's location to that repository in order to enable multiple
editors to work on it. Does anyone see a problem with that?
Also, we will need help to host the editor's draft from mercurial instead of
cvs
On Jun 7, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> 3. Editors: Nikunj Mehta (Invited Expert), Eliot Graf (Microsoft)
> 4. Spec document management: Currently W3C CVS, also using W3C's Distributed
> CVS (Mercurial) system
>
> The current spec is really far out of date at th
Art asked for a status update on the IndexedDB spec. Here's my summary of the
status:
1. Last published working draft: Jan 5, 2010
2. Bugzilla status: 15 issues logged
3. Editors: Nikunj Mehta (Invited Expert), Eliot Graf (Microsoft)
4. Spec document management: Currently W3C CVS, also
On May 18, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>
>> On May 18, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>>> If the use case here
On May 18, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 1:02 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> A database connection that locks the entire database cannot be opened if
> there is another database connection that locks
On May 18, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 1:02 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> I won't talk about tabs and such. Let's make clarification questions be
>> related to spec text.
> Simply replace any instance of tabs with "database connections&q
n ordinary transactions, and app-managed versioning of
"schema"
# Allow DDL like operations in a special transaction at any time
We went with the middle option after some amount of analysis and discussion.
On May 13, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 7:51 AM, Nikunj
On May 18, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> If the use case here is to avoid tripping up on schema changes, then:
>>
>> 1. Lock the database when starting a database connection. This is the
>> non-sha
On May 18, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>> If the use case here is to avoid tripping up on schema changes, then:
>>>
>>> 1. Lock t
her wrote:
>> On 5/13/2010 7:51 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>>
>>> If you search archives you will find a discussion on versioning and that
>>> we gave up on doing version management inside the browser and instead leave
>>> it to applications to do their o
If you search archives you will find a discussion on versioning and that we
gave up on doing version management inside the browser and instead leave it to
applications to do their own versioning and upgrades.
Nikunj
On May 12, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> A recent con
Hi Ben,
On May 6, 2010, at 1:23 PM, ben turner wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We've been playing around with the async API and have made some
> changes to the IDBRequest interface that we'd like feedback on and
> hopefully inclusion in the spec. Here's what we have now:
>
> interface IDBRequest : Even
Dumi,
I am not sure what the API expectations are for different levels of durability
of storage APIs. Is it:
1. Options passed to individual APIs selecting durability level
2. Separate API calls for different durability level
3. Allocations occurring through markup requiring user actions which a
On May 5, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 5/5/2010 1:09 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> I'd also worry that if creating the transaction were completely transparent
>> to the user that they might not think to close it either. (I'm mainly
>> thinking about copy-and-paste coders here.)
> I s
On May 4, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
> The interaction between transactions and objects that allow multiple
> operations is giving us trouble. I need to elaborate a little to explain the
> problem.
>
> You can perform operations in IndexedDB with or without an explicitly started
>
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Mike Clement wrote:
> FWIW, the "transient" vs. "permanent" storage support is exactly why I
> eagerly await an implementation of EricU's Filesystem API. Being able to
> guarantee that the UA will n
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta w
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta w
Art,
Let's use Bugzilla for all the spec bugs and enhancement requests on IndexedDB.
Once we decide to track "issues" and find independent resolution, we could use
TrackBot.
Nikunj
On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Nikunj,
>
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 2
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Mark Seaborn wrote:
>
> "* An e-mail web app requests an amount of storage that is large enough to
> store all your current e-mail, plus your e-mail for the next year at
> projected rates. As this runs out, it can request more.
> * A backup web app requests an amo
> the various other threads it spawned first and only re-start things if they
> have new information to add.
> I read it, but I don't see a consensus formed before it died off. Am I
> missing something?
>
> It was kind of difficult to track. The basic consensus was that pers
t 3:10 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> As I see it, there's no such thing as "permanent" storage for Web browser
> managed data. Even if a site expresses preferences that it would like to keep
> its data resident for a long time, there cannot be a "guarantee" for the data
hatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/thread.html#22289
> and the various other threads it spawned first and only re-start things if
> they have new information to add.
>
> J
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> As I see it, there'
As I see it, there's no such thing as "permanent" storage for Web browser
managed data. Even if a site expresses preferences that it would like to keep
its data resident for a long time, there cannot be a "guarantee" for the data
to be there permanently. If applications are bound to have to deal
Let's have discussions on the mailing list. That said, let's move minor bugs
such as typos and agreed decisions for applying to the spec over to the issue
tracking system.
HTH,
Nikunj
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 4/19/2010 11:29 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> 2) In the spec, dynamic transactions and the difference bet
Hi folks,
I am excited to see all the discussion lately around IndexedDB as well as the
attention it is receiving from multiple implementors.
In order to have a sane process around processing feedback and keeping track of
progress, may I request you to please use the W3 issue tracking system [1
n this thread
that are required, so I won't redundantly mark each with "same
here", but I have a few comments on one or two of them below.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Nikunj Mehta micron.com> wrote:
Thanks for your
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote:
Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last
Call Working Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimp
On Mar 12, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Looking at just this snip:
function findFred(db) {
db.request.onsuccess = function() {
var index = db.request.result;
index.request.onsuccess = function() {
var matching = index.request.result;
if (matching)
report(match
(starting a new thread to focus discussion on identifying shortcomings
of currently specced API)
As specced, it is possible to have multiple concurrent requests at
various API entry points, except for the IndexedDatabaseRequest
interface. In this particular case, you can only have one reque
On Mar 12, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Would it possibly be more appropriate and expedient to only provide a
sync API for now (and defer async support to possibly a later
version)?
This is entirely plausible. It is also the reason I have te
Thanks for your patience. Most questions below don't seem to need new
spec text.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
I'm sorry that I let so much IndexedDB feedback get backlogged. In
the future, I'll try to trickle things out slower.
Indexes:
1) Creation of indexes really
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> * There is nothing preventing JS authors
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Orlow
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Kris Zyp
wrote:
* Use promises for async interfaces - In server side
JavaScript, most projects are moving towards
On Feb 28, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Another nit: as far as I can tell, all of the common parts of the
interfaces are named Foo, the synchronous API portion is FooSync,
and the async API portion is FooRequest. This is true except for
IndexedDatabase where the sync version is s
On Jan 31, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
d. The current draft fails to format in IE, the script that
comes with the page fails with an error
I am aware of this and am working with the maintainer of ReSpec.js
tool to publish an editor's draft that displays in IE. Would
Hi all,
Sorry to be slow in responding to all the feedback on Indexed DB. As
you know, this is now my unpaid work and I am trying my best to
respond to comments before the weekend is up.
But this is good. Please keep the feedback and early implementation
experience coming.
On Jan 30, 20
On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A few comments I've been meaning to suggest:
* count on KeyRange - Previously I had asked if there would be a way
to get a count of the number of objects within a given key range. The
addition of the Ke
On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
These are notes that we collected both from reviewing the spec
(editor's draft up to Jan 24th) and from a prototype implementation
that we are working on. I didn't realize we had this many notes,
otherwise I would have been sending intermed
tStore
KeyRange
Environment
DatabaseError
At which point, there's not too many interfaces left without the IDB
prefix (mostly synchronous variants of these interfaces) so maybe we
should just prefix everything?
Thanks!
J
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Nikunj Mehta
wrote:
On Jan 2
Hi Pablo,
Great work and excellent feedback. I will take a little bit of time to
digest and respond.
Nikunj
On Jan 26, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
These are notes that we collected both from reviewing the spec
(editor's draft up to Jan 24th) and from a prototype implementation
On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
The interface names in IndexedDB (and to an extent, WebSQLDatabase)
are very generic. Surprisingly, the specs only collide via the
"Database" interface (which is why I bring this up), but I'm
concerned that names like Cursor, Transaction,
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Arthur Barstow > wrote:
Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last
Call Working Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpl
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Nikunj,
On Jan 16, 2010, at 7:07 PM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
I would like to move the IndexedDB spec to Last Call at the earliest
possible. Please provide feedback that can help us prepare a strong
draft for LCWD.
Do you want a fixed
Hello all,
I have joined this WG as an invited expert and plan to continue to
work on the two specs I am editing and move them forward. I look
forward to work with you all to make progress on these two and the
other deliverables of this WG.
I would like to move the IndexedDB spec to Last
og on these topics and continue to follow their progress.
It was really wonderful to know all the people in this WG both over
email and in face to face meetings. I wish the best to the WG in its
mission.
Nikunj Mehta
http://blog.o-micron.com
Joseph Pecoraro wrote:
I have changed to using the new method "immediate" and that also removed this call.
Immediate looks useful. The specification for immediate is:
[[
When this method is called, the user agent creates a new cache transaction, and performs the steps to ad
http://o-micron.blogspot.com/2008/06/mobile-databases-or-write-through-web.html
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
We want to standardize interception of HTTP requests inside Web
browsers so as to allow applications to do their own interception
and seamlessly access data on-line an
t protocol, especially one that does not require
all or nothing semantics for data versioning; BITSY has no protocol
limitations.
Nikunj Mehta
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Apr 27, 2009, at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:52:22 +0200, Nikunj Mehta > wrote:
More
BITSY is offered as a complementary technique for WebStorage not as a
replacement to SQL.
On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
We want to standardize interception of HTTP requests inside Web
browsers
so as to allow applications to do
On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Nikunj Mehta
wrote:
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta >
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson
wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the
high-profile version o
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 4/23/09 4:18 PM):
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL i
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/24/09 2:24 AM):
[snip]
Preferably, the current Section 4
would be renamed as
[[
Structured Storage
]]
with the following wording in it:
[[
The working group is currently debating whether SQL is the right
abstraction
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the high-
profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd like
to just come
to some sort of conclusion on the
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for JSON-b
change the draft later in case the spec takes a different
turn than the current drafts.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Nikunj
Mehta wrote:
Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the
WG also
lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation
, at 10:44 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Nikunj-
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/21/09 5:44 PM):
Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the
WG
also lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation
that WebStorage is
"two APIs for client-side data storage i
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract:
This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in Web
clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for accessing
structured data.
Done.
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta > wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did
not
find them enuncia
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did not
find them enunciated anywhere.
There's only one requirement that I know of:
* Allow Web sites to store structured data o
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
One clear problem identified despite these examples is that we do
not have a precise enough spec for the query language to make truly
independent interoperable implementations possible.
There are several different query languages that c
Just a clarification about the charter...
On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding a WG Note, that doesn't seem appropriate in this case
since the WG's plan of record (Charter) is to create a
Recommendation for this spec.
The charter [1] includes "Offline APIs and Struc
g/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0133.html
On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:42 AM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Oracle does not support the substance of the current Web Storage
draft
[1][2][3]. This is a path-breaking change
purpose of publishing the document. A
boilerplate status is not appropriate since there are important
concerns about the technique used for structured storage in the draft.
Nikunj Mehta
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0131.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
