On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I
don't
believe it really fits into the Web Storage spec (if anything, I
think we
should split Web Storage into two further specs, not add a third
wholly
independent feature to it). However, I would definitely support an
FPWD
publication of Nikunj's proposal, as I have for other proposals.
That is encouraging. I will be glad to edit an FPWD that includes B-
tree, interception, and programmable cache, if the WG so prefers.
It seems to me that Berkley DB style database storage, and request
interception / programmable cache are orthogonal ideas and should
arguably be separate drafts. I would assume request interception and
programmable cache are usable regardless of what client-side storage
APIs are available, much as HTML5 Application Cache is independent
of these APIs. If anything, it seems more closely related to
AppCache than to any proposed storage solution.
I don't have a preference either way. Request interception and
programmable cache belong in a single spec. We could put Structured
storage in a separate spec on its own.
Regards,
Maciej
