- From: Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:39:30 -0400
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
OK, I'll close out our bugs on the subject and point to this conversation. Thanks, -Mark On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > I say we should allow the empty string. Apparently there were no > specific reason why we added such a check to our code. > > / Jonas > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com> wrote: >> I have no opinion whatsoever, except that the spec should specify it >> one way or the other so I can close these bugs. :) >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> Good question. I don't have a strong opinion. It makes sense to me to >>> allow anything. Don't know I there was any reason we added explicit >>> checks. >>> >>> / Jonas >>> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2011, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@google.com> wrote: >>>> 1. Can an object store be named the empty string? >>>> >>>> 2. Can an index be named the empty string? >>>> >>>> Other things, like databases, are allowed to have a name that is the >>>> empty string. Mozilla has tests that expect both of the above cases to >>>> fail, but as I'm porting those tests to WebKit, it's not clear from my >>>> reading of the spec whether those tests are valid. >>>> >>>> -Mark Pilgrim >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 17:39:55 UTC