On Sep 13, 2009, at 3:23 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Arthur Barstow
<[email protected]> wrote:
3. The following statement doesn't seem necessary given
preferences is of
type Storage; as such, I think it should be removed:
[[
A user agent must have the ability to directly read and write to
the storage
area (i.e., without needing to make use of the [WebStorage]
specification's
Storage interface) and must have the ability to delete a storage
area.
]]
I don't agree. The above gives a storage area the ability to be
populated with config.xml <preference> data without the UA using the
Storage interface. This is important, as events must not be fired
during pre-population.
However, it might be that the above assertion needs to be rewritten to
directly address the <preference> use case (hence making the assertion
more testable). WDYT?
Section 6. should prescribe everything that needs to be said thus I
don't think the text I quoted is necessary. If Section 6 doesn't
sufficiently address the mapping to <preference>, then yes, it should
be updated.
6. The following assertion is another implementation detail that
should be
removed or made non-normative:
[[
A user agent should impose their own implementation-specific
limits on the
length of otherwise unconstrained keys and values of a storage
area, e.g. to
prevent denial of service attacks, to guard against running out of
memory,
or to work around platform-specific limitations.
]]
The above is a boilerplate "hot potato" assertion, that puts the onus
of securing the implementation on implementers. It's basically there
to protect the WG from people asking "what happens if I try to
store/do something strange". I don't know if we should remove it.
I don't think the quoted text above provides any protection nor
particular value [hint: nuke it or make it a Note].
-Regards, Art Barstow
