On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> > > >> > > Cheer up, I can think of _much_ worst things that have popped out of >> > > the W3C onto the Web than Web Storage:) >> > >> > Yeah but they typically have minimal impact on the deployed Web, >> > unlike the storage mutex problem. >> >> So hang on... Why are going to LC if this is such a massive issue? > > Well from the point of view of the spec, the issue is resolved. It "just" > has unfortunate performance implications for multi-process UAs. >
I see.. > >> Is this issue clearly marked in the spec with a link to at least an >> email thread where the problem is described? > > Not currently; I can add some text if you think that would be useful. > yes please. It would save us having to waste time searching mailing lists, bug reports, etc. for an authorative source to the issue. Just a sentence or two, nothing facy... Enough to get started. > I > had assumed everyone was pretty much fully aware of the issue. > Nope; though when I read that part of the spec and was left feeling totally confused I should have said something. Also, It's hard to track all the work (and related issues) that take place outside the WG. Adding red block to specs is a big help; I know you already do that in most specs. > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > > -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
