Specification status report for TPAC 2019

[LJWatson]

Please can you respond to this comment with a brief specifications status report for the WebApps meeting at TPAC. The report should address the following:

• What progress has your spec made in the last 12 months?
• Is anything blocking your spec from moving to CR?
• If yes, what is your plan to unblock it and do you need any help?
• What do you want to achieve for your spec in the next two days (of breakout sessions)?

We're tracking these status reports in WebApps issue #19

Thanks.

[inexorabletash]

Progress on "Indexed DB 3.0" in the last 12 months has included only 3 normative changes: Added IDBFactory databases() method; added IDBTransaction commit() method; added IDBCursor request attribute. Other changes to the spec text include refactoring algorithms to de-duplicate steps and using/referencing common "infra" terms.

I don't believe the spec has warranted enough changes to justify the effort to move to CR. We don't have multiple implementations of some of the new additions (commit() method, request attribute). We are planning to discuss several other potential additions at TPAC 2019. (See #288).

[inexorabletash]

Worth mentioning here: one possible future for KV Storage is to merge it into the IDB spec; some of us think it is the best solution to the "make IDB more ergonomic" goal expressed for IDB 3

EDIT: Apparently this was expressed as the "plan of record" at TPAC 2018. It is currently held up on the future of built in modules IIRC (@domenic ?)

[inexorabletash]

Closing out, FPWD tracked in #268