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

Re: RE: [IndexedDB] Plans to get to feature complete [Was: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings ]

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:06:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8PCg2O31C3ue4CDXh1Q0VL_R6XvvXR2E7MW8XNkk5Z1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>
Cc: Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:17 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>> Gecko does not implement the IDBSync APIs, and
>> I don't think that is likely to change in the
>> next few months.
>
>
> From: "Israel Hilerio" <israelh@microsoft.com>
>
>> IE is not planning on implementing the IDBSync
>> APIs for IE10 and we proposed to mark them
>> "At Risk" on the current spec.
>
>
> Sync in workers is a really nice feature. So I guess we can always add it back at a later point.
>
> Right now, Opera doesn't plan on implementing the IDBSync APIs in the immediate future either.

I would prefer to mark the section as "At Risk" rather than removing
it, but I'm fine either way.

While we don't have any plans to implement it right now, that might
certainly change. On the other hand, having just one conforming
implementation wouldn't be enough to pass the REC requirements.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 10:07:06 GMT

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