On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Marcos Caceres > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:59 +0200, Arthur Barstow <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Comments on this proposal are welcome and please send them by June 27 at >>>> the latest. >>> >>> I don't think this make sense. Unless it is removed from browsers it is part >>> of the web platform and as such requires normative documentation. >> >> I agree with Anne. Can we just agree on the bits that are implemented >> (i.e., drop the structured clones stuff), show interop through a test >> suite? Despite the mutex issue, this is still a simple and useful API >> for a vast number of use cases. > > The use cases being "environments which are single-process, i.e. in a > near future not any major browsers" and "environments where you don't > care about bugs here and there due to race conditions"?
Browser extensions might fit this use case (both Chrome and Opera make use of localStorage for extensions). See: http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/faq.html#faq-dev-08 http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-extensions-options-page/ Browser extensions are in every browser, so in a sense are part of the web platform. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
