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: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:19:47 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTiky_XZN4az-WUav0cJkWxVMIggupHXAAmCRWIAE@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Cc: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>wrote:

>
>
> 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 designing for outdated technology is a poor approach.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.
>

I had the same concerns Pablo did, but I don't feel strongly either way.

J
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 10:20:39 GMT

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