- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 04:58:08 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17750 --- Comment #11 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> --- (In reply to Adrian Bateman [MSFT] from comment #10) > Since I wrote that I've proposed that there is no explicit sharing - just > that you don't necessarily need to go through PENDING to get to READY. Thanks. I moved this discussion to bug 21855. (In reply to Adrian Bateman [MSFT] from comment #10) > (In reply to David Dorwin from comment #9) > > Should we be more explicit about close() being a hint in the proposal in > > comment #8? > > I don't think we can be. I wonder if we can start with saying there are no > guarantees and see if we run into implementation problems? Are there > specific guarantees you are looking for? I meant, should we explicitly note that close() is just a hint - that is, it will not necessarily destroy keys or result in a closed event? (I think we're in agreement that this is the intended/possible behavior.) This might be helpful for readers who might otherwise assume that close() will destroy keys immediately. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 04:58:09 UTC