- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:34:17 +0100
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.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>
I think we've been feature complete for a while now. With one exception, which is that some error handling that we've discussed on the list needs to be edited into the spec. Apart from that we have a number of fairly minor uncontroversial fixes (details around generators, order in objectStore/index lists etc), and one more controversial fix (numeric vs. string constants). But these aren't new features by any means. I think the stuff that we have bugs on are mostly things that everyone agree that we can and should fix for v1 since they are mostly defining things that are currently undefined. / Jonas On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi All - setting aside this specific issue for the moment, I'd like to step > back and try to determine what the group is thinking re getting IDB to > feature complete. > > I note that over two years ago, a pre-LCWD comment period for IDB ended [1] > ;-). Additionally, there are 16 open bugs [2] for this spec. It also appears > the IDB is getting some relatively broad implementation [3]. > > As such, what are the plans and schedule to get this spec to feature > complete? Besides the issue raised in the head of this thread and the API > issue Jonas mentions below, which open bugs are considered must-be-fixed for > v1? > > -Thanks, AB > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0205.html > [2] http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-IndexedDB > [3] http://caniuse.com/#feat=indexeddb > > > On 2/28/12 11:56 AM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Yes it might take a little longer, but Indexed DB has not even been >>> through >>> a Last Call yet and you already want to freeze it? My impression of >>> Indexed >>> DB thus far has been that there has not been that much outside review >>> yet. >>> In any event, aligning it with Web IDL is important. And I hope Indexed >>> DB >>> will move away from DOMStringList too so that can be removed from the >>> platform. >> >> Just to be clear. We've all been here long enough to know that Last >> Call is not what matters, what matters is when implementations ship >> and when enough content is authored that making incompatible changes >> will break too much content. This is an argument you yourself has made >> in other specifications and which I agree is reality we have to live >> with. >> >> That said, I don't think there is enough content out there that would >> break over this change, which is why I think it's an ok change to >> make. >> >> If you are worried IndexedDB hasn't received enough review, I strongly >> encourage you to start reviewing. >> >> I personally only know of one other "bad" thing in the API (the fact >> that the second argument to openCursor is a string rather than a >> dictionary), but since it's something that can be fixed in the next >> version I prefer to fix it there. >> >> There's also error handling which has been discussed on the mailing >> list but where the conclusions from that discussion needs to be added >> to the spec. >> >> / Jonas >> >
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 17:35:19 UTC