I suggest posting this description into the bug report, instead of the email list. Otherwise people looking at the bug won't have any idea what you meant. Gili On 21/05/2014 9:56 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> >> Subject: Re: [Bug 25834] close is synchronous& idopontent >> Date: May 21, 2014 at 8:22:27 AM EDT >> To: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> >> >> >> yes, that is what was meant - we were entering these rapidly as people talked. Basically if close as been called before, it should immediately succeed if called again. >> >> On May 20, 2014, at 6:56 PM, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote: >> >>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25834 >>> >>> Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> changed: >>> >>> What |Removed |Added >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CC| |cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org >>> >>> --- Comment #1 from Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> --- >>> I assume there is a typo in the title. Is idopontent meant to be idempotent? >>> >>> Also, it's not clear what this issue is about (a title with no description). >>> >>> -- >>> You are receiving this mail because: >>> You reported the bug. >Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 14:58:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:58 UTC