W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] .value of no-duplicate cursors

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:16:00 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniqec10yed6RwP+nKFYJs_MxVEd3Nb2aMT5v06@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: ben turner <bent.mozilla@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > When I think of this, I think of it returning the first item for a
> > particular value.  I can't think of any use cases where it'd matter
> either
> > way though.  Can you?
>
> Define "first" :)
>
> I also can't think of use cases where it matters which is returned,
> but I still think it's confusing that it'd change depending on which
> order things are iterated.
>
> Consider a page with displays a table of results and which has the
> ability to sort results by a particular column by clicking the header
> in that column. It would seem strange if the contents of that table
> change if you switched a column between ascending and descending
> sorting.
>

I can't think of a case where an app would be doing something like this
though.  Anyway, after thinking about it, I think what you guys are
advocating is slightly better.  I guess lets stick with that.

J
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 05:16:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT