- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:15:15 -0700
- To: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
I agree that they should be non-normative and that we should avoid using MAY etc in them. However we should make sure that somewhere there's a normative statement that says that implementations are allowed to make .indexedDB be null, or that .open always returns error for security and/or privacy reasons. Probably in the IDBFactory and IDBEnvironment interfaces. / Jonas On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com> wrote: > Jonas, > > Do you agree with Tobie that Sections 6 & 7 should be non-normative? If so, I am happy to take care of this. > > Cheers. > > Eliot > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:28 AM >> To: Tobie Langel >> Cc: public-webapps@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [IndexedDB] Normative content arguably informative in IndexedDB >> LC draft >> >> Thanks for finding this. I filed >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17303 >> >> / Jonas >> >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Section 6 (Privacy) and 7 (Authorization) of the IndexedDB LC draft[1] >> > feel very informative, yet they're not marked as such. >> > >> > Is there ground to keep them as normative content or should we >> > explicitly mark them as non-normative, remove their usage of the RFC >> > 2119 MAY keyword, and mark the linked references ([COOKIES]) as >> informative? >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > --tobie >> > >> > --- >> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-IndexedDB-20120524/ >> > >> > >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 22:16:14 UTC