Re: [w3c/IndexedDB] Sketch out spec text for transaction durability option (#301)

Excellent phrasing on the spec text.  I don't think I personally have an opinion on the signature other than the overload stuff at https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-overloading is complicated and the presence of optional arguments complicates things.  (Specifically, in our attempt to eliminate Firefox's overload of `open` and use-counting we've run into things.)  It seems reasonable to me to stick to not having any overloads if we think we can avoid future overloads, which would be an argument for the current pull request's approach.  If we'll want overloads in the future, we maybe should consider all of this more strongly.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/pull/301#issuecomment-535656079