W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2013

Re: IndexedDB, what were the issues? How do we stop it from happening again?

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:28:03 +0000
To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6F237B548FDB48D4974CF65DB5D2DF24@marcosc.com>



On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 15:24, Karl Dubost wrote:

>  
> Le 7 févr. 2013 à 09:47, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> > If you take a look at the Alarm API [1], you see what appears to be similar patterns to those used in IndexedDB (in particular the AlarmRequest interface). You see the same XRequest patterns being applied to all of the "System APIs" (see list of specs at [2]). I'm told that this XRequest pattern is based on IndexedDB (and Mozilla's B2G Project's nonstandard "DOMRequest" object [3]).  
>  
>  
>  
> Yes the Web alarm spec says it itself.
> "This interface is identical to the DOMRequest interface [DOMREQUEST]."
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/DOMRequest
>  
> And I would like just to note that here the "design by committee" rant is a rant which is made by the branding on the spec more than by the reality of interactions and sources. Just to keep in mind.
I don't understand "made by the branding on the spec more than by the reality of interactions and sources"?  

> Instead of looking at "who made it", it's more interesting to check "how was it made".
>  

Sure, I want to go to the sausage factory! :)   
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 15:28:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2013 15:28:34 GMT