[w3ctag/spec-reviews] IndexedDB 2.0 features review (#153)

Hello TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of:

  - Name: the following IndexedDB 2.0 features
    * [Support for binary keys](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#key-construct)
        * [interaction with key generators](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#key-generator-construct)
        * [key extraction for binary keys](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#convert-value-to-key)
    * [IDBObjectStore.prototype.name setter](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#dom-idbobjectstore-name)
    * [IDBIndex.prototype.name setter](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#dom-idbindex-name)
    * [IDBObjectStore.prototype.getKey](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#dom-idbobjectstore-getkey)
    * [IDBCursor.prototype.continuePrimaryKey](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/#dom-idbcursor-continueprimarykey)
      previously discussed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0490.html
  - Specification URL: [IndexedDB 2.0 (Editor's Draft)](https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/)
  - Explainer, Requirements Doc, or Example code:
    * [Explainer and example for all IndexedDB 2.0 features](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/10/whats-new-in-indexeddb-2-0/)
    * Support for binary keys -
      [requirements](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0816.html)
    * IDBObjectStore.prototype.name setter -
      [requirements](https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/22)
    * IDBIndex.prototype.name setter -
      [requirements](https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/22)
    * IDBObjectStore.prototype.getKey -
      [requirements](https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/26) |
      [example](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IDBObjectStore/getKey)
    * IDBCursor.prototype.continuePrimaryKey -
      [explainer](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20257)
      [requirements](https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/issues/14) |
      [example](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IDBCursor/continuePrimaryKey)
  - Primary contacts: jsbell@chromium.org, pwnall@chromium.org

Further details (optional):

  - Relevant time constraints or deadlines: Feb 28 would be ideal, we'd like to ship in Chrome M58
  - [x] I have read and filled out the [Self-Review Questionnare on Security and Privacy](https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/). The [assessment is here](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2016OctDec/0031.html) and [here](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Nov/0004.html).
  - [x] I have reviewed the TAG's [API Design Principles](https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/)

You should also know that...

We have submitted tests covering all the features above to
[web-platform-tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests). Chrome (with
the Experimental Web Platform Features flag) passes all the test cases
(159/159). Firefox (nightly) passes over 98.7% (157/159) of the test cases, and
Safari (Tech Preview 23) passes over 99.3% (158/159) of the test cases.

Firefox has already shipped all the IndexedDB 2.0 features mentioned above, based
on the Editor's Draft specification,
[in Firefox 51](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/51#IndexedDB_v2).
Safari is about to ship the features above
[in Safari 10.1](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Articles/Safari_10_1.html),
which is included in the OS X 10.12.4 beta.
We (Chrome) have implemented the features under the Experimental Web Platform Features flag,
and plan to ship them following this TAG review.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):

  - [x] leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify @pwnall and @inexorabletash

--------------------------

_Please preview the issue and check that the links work before submitting_

For background, some decent explainers:

  https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/blob/master/explainer.md
  https://github.com/zkoch/paymentrequest/blob/gh-pages/docs/explainer.md
  https://github.com/WICG/IntersectionObserver/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md (although this one includes IDL, which an explainer should not)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/153