Whomever adds delete/continue back to the spec needs to inline into
the spec an explanation of why it's ok per ES5.
Most (all) of us grew up pre ES5 and *believe* that they're truly
reserved keywords and that what you're doing is invalid.
So without inlining the explanation into the spec, you're
There seems to be agreement that delete() is acceptable. Could you file a bug?
/ Jonas
On Monday, July 5, 2010, Kris Zyp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20
> PM, Pablo Castro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/2010 12:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL
that different names are used for scripted languages and for
compiled
Hi,
(brief background before jumping out of the blue: I'm working with
Andrei and Jeremy with the IDB implementation..)
I'd like to mention the IDBCursor::continue is also problematic, as
afaict "continue" is a reserved keyword in JS?
oh, "delete" seems to be reserved as well:
https://developer.m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/2010 12:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
> mailto:pablo.cas...@microsoft.com>>
> wrote:
> >>> We developed a similar trick
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
> wrote:
> >>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that
> different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled languages.
> >
> >>> So all in all I believe
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>>> We developed a similar trick where we can indicate in the IDL that
>>> different names are used for scripted languages and for compiled languages.
>
>>> So all in all I believe this problem can be overcome. I prefer to focus on
>>> making
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jo...@sicking.cc]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 PM
>> >> >> So there is a real likelyhood of a browser implementation that
>> >> >> will predate it's associated JS engine's upgrade to ES5?
>> >> >> Feeling a "concern" isn't really much of technical argument on
>
eeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
>> February 2
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Seeking pr
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
>
>
> From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
> February 2
>
>>> On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Ca
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
> From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
> Orlow
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
> February 2
>
> On F
From: jor...@google.com [mailto:jor...@google.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Orlow
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro
wrote:
From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
>
> From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
> February 2
>
> >> On 6/10/20
From: Kris Zyp [mailto:k...@sitepen.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
February 2
>> On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>> >
>> >>> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/10/2010 4:15 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>
>>> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kris Zyp
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:49 AM Subject: Re: Seeking
>
>> From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Kris Zyp
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:49 AM
>> Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline
>> February 2
>> I see that in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/2/2010 12:48 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>
>
> On 2/1/2010 8:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>
>
>>> the existence of currentTransaction in the same class).
>
>
>
>>> "beginTransaction" would capture semantics more accurately.
> b.
>
>>> ObjectS
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
Hi All,
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
Nikunj would like to move the Indexed Database API spec to Last Call
Working Draft (LCWD):
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/
If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org
by February 2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/1/2010 8:17 PM, Pablo Castro wrote:
> [snip]
>> the existence of currentTransaction in the same class).
>
>> "beginTransaction" would capture semantics more accurately. b.
>> ObjectStoreSync.delete: delete is a Javascript keyword, can we
>> us
A few comments inline marked with [PC].
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Nikunj Mehta
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:37 PM
To: Kris Zyp
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API
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 Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:46 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
> a
-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 KeyRange interface seems to be a step towards that
ack to the working group next Monday
(25th Jan).
From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:48 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; Jeremy Orlow
Subject: Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments f
For what it's worth we are in the same situation at mozilla
On Jan 19, 2010 3:40 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...
We at Apple are also in reviewing the spec and would also like additional
time to
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 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/WebSimpleDB/
>
> If you have any comments, please send th
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/WebSimpleDB/
>
> If you have any comments, please send them to public-webapps@w3.org by
> February 2.
>
> Note th
29 matches
Mail list logo
