[IndexedDB] Plans to get to feature complete [Was: Numeric constants vs enumerated strings ]

Hi All - setting aside this specific issue for the moment, I'd like to 
step back and try to determine what the group is thinking re getting IDB 
to feature complete.

I note that over two years ago, a pre-LCWD comment period for IDB ended 
[1] ;-). Additionally, there are 16 open bugs [2] for this spec. It also 
appears the IDB is getting some relatively broad implementation [3].

As such, what are the plans and schedule to get this spec to feature 
complete? Besides the issue raised in the head of this thread and the 
API issue Jonas mentions below, which open bugs are considered 
must-be-fixed for v1?

-Thanks, AB

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0205.html
[2] http://tinyurl.com/Bugz-IndexedDB
[3] http://caniuse.com/#feat=indexeddb


On 2/28/12 11:56 AM, ext Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com>  wrote:
>>> 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.
> Just to be clear. We've all been here long enough to know that Last
> Call is not what matters, what matters is when implementations ship
> and when enough content is authored that making incompatible changes
> will break too much content. This is an argument you yourself has made
> in other specifications and which I agree is reality we have to live
> with.
>
> That said, I don't think there is enough content out there that would
> break over this change, which is why I think it's an ok change to
> make.
>
> If you are worried IndexedDB hasn't received enough review, I strongly
> encourage you to start reviewing.
>
> I personally only know of one other "bad" thing in the API (the fact
> that the second argument to openCursor is a string rather than a
> dictionary), but since it's something that can be fixed in the next
> version I prefer to fix it there.
>
> There's also error handling which has been discussed on the mailing
> list but where the conclusions from that discussion needs to be added
> to the spec.
>
> / Jonas
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 17:29:13 UTC