On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:28:59 +0200, Marcos Caceres
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I, in principle, agree that not replicating existing storage APIs
is a
good thing, are we sure that all widget implementations will implement
HTML5?
As Jonas said, we would just mandate that implementations implement
just that one part of HTML5. Or, we just rip that part of HTML5 and
put it in our spec and make sure we keep them synced.
If we are to do one of these, I'd very much prefer not to have to keep it
continously updated until 2022.
Also, are we sure that a preference storage may not have additional
requirements that make them a bad match (such as encryption of stored
data)?
I also agree with Jonas that if it's good for widgets, it's probably
good for HTML5 as a whole. For V1 of widgets, I think that HTML5's
storage meets r26 [1]. But if new requirements arise (such as data
encryption) we should work with the HTML-WG on that.
Note that encryption, which was my example here, may be an implementation
detail. I was just trying to say something about the requirement for HTML5
and Widgets might be different.
--
Arve Bersvendsen
Developer, Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
