W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for Indexed Database API; deadline February 2

From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:54:03 +0000
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F753B2C401114141B426DB383C8885E058E19FFE@TK5EX14MBXC126.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>


From: Kris Zyp [mailto:kris@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-request@w3.org
>> >>> [mailto:public-webapps-request@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 the trunk version of the spec [1] that delete()
>> >>> was changed to remove(). I thought we had established that
>> >>> there is no reason to make this change. Is anyone seriously
>> >>> expecting to have an implementation prior to or without ES5's
>> >>> contextually unreserved keywords? I would greatly prefer
>> >>> delete(), as it is much more consistent with standard DB and
>> >>> REST terminology.
>> >
>> > My concern is that it seems like taking an unnecessary risk. I
>> > understand the familiarity aspect (and I like delete() better as
>> > well), but to me that's not a strong enough reason to use it and
>> > potentially cause trouble in some browser.
>> >
>> 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 it's own, and
>> designing for outdated technology is a poor approach.

I don't think there is, just wanted to avoid imposing it. If you think it's really important then let's change it back to delete assuming other folks are good with it.

-pablo
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 00:54:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT