On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote: > >> > >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >>> > >>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that > >>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured clone > >>> algorithm rather than strings. And yet there isn't a single > >>> implementation > >>> who's implemented this. I've talked to people in the know from several > >>> of > >>> the other major browsers and, although no one is super against > >>> implementing > >>> it (including us), no one has it on any of their (even internal) > >>> roadmaps. It's just not a high enough priority for anyone at the moment. > >>> I feel pretty strongly that we should _at least_ put in some > >>> non-normative > >>> note that no browser vendor is currently planning on implementing this > >>> feature. Or, better yet, just remove it from the spec until support > >>> starts > >>> emerging. > >> > >> I agree. We have no plans to support this in the near future either. At > >> the > >> very least, I think this should be noted as a "feature at risk" in the > >> Call > >> for Implementations [1]. > > > > I don't have a strong preference for removing this feature or marking it as > > a Feature At Risk when the Candidate is published. > > > > It would be good to get feedback from other implementers (Maciej?, Jonas?, > > Anne?). If no one plans to implement it, perhaps it should just be removed. > > I personally would like to see it implemented in Firefox (and other > browsers), but I don't feel super strongly. It's something that we > likely will be discussing in a few weeks here at Mozilla. > > My understanding is that many people across many browsers have thought it was > a cool idea and would have been happy to have seen it implemented. But no > one has done so. > > Which is why I think we should _at least_ add a non-normative note stating > the situation to the spec. Once it's being implemented then, by all means, > we can remove it. But who knows how much longer it'll be before anyone > actually implements it.
I don't think it is necessary for specs to include non-normative notes about the current implementation status of particular features. I would be ok with marking the feature "at risk" if it still lacks implementations by the time Web Storage goes to CR. Regards, Maciej
