On 1/31/2010 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
a. 3.1.3: do we really need in-line + out-of-line keys? Besides
the concept-count increase, we wonder whether out-of-line keys would
cause trouble to generic libraries, as the values for the keys
wouldn't be part of the values iterated when doing
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
> > > I prefer to leave composite keys to a future version.
>
> I don't think we can get away with this. For indexes this is quite common
> (if anything else to have stable ordering when the prefix of the index has
> repeats). Once we have it f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/2/2010 8:37 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
d. 3.2.4.2: in our experiments writing application code, the
fact that this method throws an exception when an item is not found is
quite inconvenient. It would be much natural to just return undefi
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > > 1. Keys and sorting
> > > a. 3.1.1: it would seem that having also date/time values as keys
> > > would be important and it's a common sorting criteria (e.g. as part of a
> > > composite primary key or in general as an index key
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> 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
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 it be
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
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Values
>>
>> a. 3.1.2: isn't the requirement for "structured clones" too much? It
>> would mean implementations would have to be able to store and retrieve File
>> object
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
> 2. Values
>
> a. 3.1.2: isn't the requirement for "structured clones" too much? It
> would mean implementations would have to be able to store and retrieve File
> objects and such. Would it be more appropriate to say it's just graphs of
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
