Re: [IndexedDB] Numeric constants vs enumerated strings

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:50:22 +0100, Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>  
wrote:
> That is certainly one point of view.  However, we've been collecting  
> features for a v2 since before June of 2011 [1].  To that effect, we've  
> had several email exchanges between the WG members where we agree to  
> defer work for v2 (see [2], [3], etc.).  That tells me that our working  
> group is committed to delivering a v1 version of the spec.  Furthermore,  
> the fact that we have a v2 list doesn't invalidate the functionality we  
> defined in v1.  For example, there is no reason why the change you are  
> proposing couldn't be introduced in v2 and still be backwards compatible  
> with our legacy code.

Yes, you can improve features and you can call that "v2" if you want, the  
point is that once you ship you cannot make backwards incompatible  
changes. And I think we should here, because Web IDL does not support  
string constants, strongly advices against numeric constants, and there is  
ample opportunity for change here. So sure maybe a hundred developers are  
working with your preview product, but that is nothing compared to what  
the API will be exposed to in the end.


> It is our belief based on internal feedback and external partner  
> feedback that the technology will remain un-deployed and in draft form  
> if we continue to make changes like this.

Yes it might take a little longer, but Indexed DB has not even been  
through a Last Call yet and you already want to freeze it? My impression  
of Indexed DB thus far has been that there has not been that much outside  
review yet. In any event, aligning it with Web IDL is important. And I  
hope Indexed DB will move away from DOMStringList too so that can be  
removed from the platform.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 16:46:19 UTC