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

(wrong string) €™t the best for writes

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:38:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-b-Y2Mkr=YB0nv_OyjbornFO4UzjWFSFH=wnh5N5bhVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: Yonathan <yonathan@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Yonathan <yonathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should the specification encourage onsuccess
>>
>> for reads and oncomplete for writes?
>
>
> I don't think any amount of documentation is going to stop this from being
> confusing. Committing transactions should really have been an explicit
> request with its own result, and returning to the event loop without
> committing should have rolled back the transaction.
>
> (What does "when a transaction can no longer become active" mean? It
> doesn't seem to be defined.)

All places when transactions can become active are defined, so it be
unambiguous. We also have some non-normative text which makes it
easier for authors reading the spec.

If you have proposals for clearer wording though I'd be all for that.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 00:39:45 GMT

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