- From: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 01:05:56 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Monday, June 06, 2011 1:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > What about this: > > > > The default value for the range will be null which implies: > > IDBKeyRange.lower = undefined > > IDBKeyRange.upper = undefined > > IDBKeyRange.lowerOpen = false > > IDBKeyRange.upperOpen = false > > Well, currently the cursor navigation spec text deals with null cursors rather > than cursors such as the above one (which I think can't be constructed using > our current API). So I'm concerned that that would introduce inconsistencies > in the spec. > > But as long as you verify that the above text works both together with the > text in the cursor navigation algorithm, as well the definition for being in a > range, then I'm fine with the above. > > But I think it would be easier to just say that the default value for the range > argument is null. > > / Jonas I see where you're coming from. I agree with you we should just stipulate the following: * The default value for the direction will be IDBCursor.NEXT. * The default value for the IDBKeyRange argument is null. I will work with Eliot to update the spec in this area. Israel
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 01:06:24 UTC