On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking
> wrote:
>
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow
>> >> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow
> wrote:
> >> > We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> > We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec, but I think a
>> > lot
>> > might actually be more clear if we us
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec, but I think a
> lot
> > might actually be more clear if we used it more. And I think it'd also
> make
> > a good name here.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec, but I think a lot
> might actually be more clear if we used it more. And I think it'd also make
> a good name here. So I'm OK with that being the name we choose.
> Here's another ques
We haven't used the term primary key too much in the spec, but I think a lot
might actually be more clear if we used it more. And I think it'd also make
a good name here. So I'm OK with that being the name we choose.
Here's another question: what do we set primaryKey to for cursors opened via
in
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 11:00 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>>
>> As discussed in the mailing list thread from bug 11257, we should add some
>> way
>> for index.openCursor cursors to access the primary key for the
>> objectStore.
>> .indexValue, .ob
On 2/1/2011 11:00 AM, bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote:
As discussed in the mailing list thread from bug 11257, we should add some way
for index.openCursor cursors to access the primary key for the objectStore.
.indexValue, .objectStoreKey, or .primaryKey might be good names to use for it.
.objectS
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM, wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11948
> Summary: index.openCursor's cursor should have a way to access
> the index's "value" (in addition to the index's key
> and objectStore's value)
I got po
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11948
Summary: index.openCursor's cursor should have a way to access
the index's "value" (in addition to the index's key
and objectStore's value)
Product: WebAppsWG
Version: unspe
12 matches
Mail list logo