- From: Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:38:31 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
- Cc: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimJijF=uXG9MAbG1LHKXFnSTF5drHxUcA_OMHt2@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > > > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/ > > > > Notably: > > > > 1. lastModifiedDate returns a Date object. > > You don't have a conformance requirement for returning a Date object. (The > only MUST is for the case of the UA not being able to return the > information.) I mention this because for attributes that return > objects, it's important to specify whether the same object is returned > each time or whether it's a new object that is created each time. > Presumably for a Date object you want to require a new object be created > each time. > I think it makes more sense to return a new Date object each time. We have the same issue with Metadata.modificationTime. > > > > 2. We use the URL object and expose static methods on it for Blob URI > > creation and revocation. > > Looks good to me. FYI, I'm probably going to be extending this mechanism > for Streams in due course. I expect I'll bring this up again in due course > so we can work out how to make sure the specs don't step on each other. > > I'm a little concerned about the lifetime of these URLs potentially > exposing GC behaviour -- we've tried really hard not to expose GC > behaviour in the past, for good reason. Can't we jetison the URLs as part > of the unloading document cleanup steps? > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#unloading-document-cleanup-steps > > (Note that Window objects in some edge cases can survive their Document.) > > > > Also, I've minuted Sam Weinig at TPAC saying he'd prefer us to roll back > > from using the sequence<T> type WebIDL syntax to index getters. Sam: > > are you still tightly wed to this? WebIDL has undergone changes since > > last we spoke. I'm copying what HTML5 is doing, and didn't want to be > > inconsistent in rolling this back. > > FWIW, IIRC the HTML spec is a bit out of sync when it comes to WebIDL. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 22:39:00 UTC