W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] Numeric constants vs enumerated strings

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:31:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8VehNsGP2P2ojbxoukCC=Xmipo8YeBreb8nHXyEtk-mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "annevk@opera.com" <annevk@opera.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Anne,
>
>
>
> That is certainly one point of view.  However, we’ve been collecting
> features for a v2 since before June of 2011 [1].  To that effect, we’ve had
> several email exchanges between the WG members where we agree to defer work
> for v2 (see [2], [3], etc.).  That tells me that our working group is
> committed to delivering a v1 version of the spec.  Furthermore, the fact
> that we have a v2 list doesn’t invalidate the functionality we defined in
> v1.  For example, there is no reason why the change you are proposing
> couldn’t be introduced in v2 and still be backwards compatible with our
> legacy code.
>
> It is our belief based on internal feedback and external partner feedback
> that the technology will remain un-deployed and in draft form if we continue
> to make changes like this.

I completely agree that we should aggressively postpone new features
for v2 and get v1 out the door as soon as possible.

I wouldn't propose that we make a change such as this one if we
couldn't create as good of a backwards compatibility story as we can
here. I.e. basically no deployed code should need to be changed.

I also wouldn't propose this if I thought this was something that we
can change in v2. However changing the return value of .readyState,
.mode and .direction can't be done in a backwards compatible way. Once
wide-spread adoption happens (which will most surely happen before we
can get v2 out the door) we won't be able to change them.

Finally, I really think this is the last of the potentially sensitive
changes we'll make. We've recently had a third browser vendor go
through the spec with a fine comb and so far this is the only
controversial issue found. I think that's a good indication that we'll
be able to keep the rest as is. I'm definitely with you on that we
need to get a specification with a W3C Rec stamp in order for adoption
to start ramping up, something that I'm quite eager to see as you can
imagine :)

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 01:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT