Thanks for this analysis Xiaoqian.
Based on the differences, I think moving toward a 2nd edition REC seems
Re the next publication step, it seems like the next publication should
be a (4 week) "wide review" WD using Process-2014.
Re what to do with the 1st Edition errata document, rather than put
changes in that doc, I think it would be more helpful to add a link to
the latest ED and make sure the ED includes a summary list of "changes
since REC" was published. (After the 2nd edition REC is published, the
link could be changed to the new REC.)
Any objections to doing the above? If not, I'll start a CfC to see
determine if we have broad consensus to proceed this way.
On 5/8/15 12:58 PM, Xiaoqian Wu wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up, Anssi.
The diff between the REC and the latest Editor’s Draft indicated at
least two normative changes, so I’d like to propose a second edition
of Web Storage. What do you say?
Here’s my analysis for the current mutex. All your comments are welcome.
* ED L174, L283
- WEBIDL Updated. The getter of the Storage interface and the key of
the StorageEvent are Nullable;
- The test suite has been update for these changes . These
changes are widely implemented by the browsers.
- These changes are normative and should be accepted in the second
* ED L187
- The supported property names on a Storage object should be "in the
order that the keys were last added to the storage area”(added).
- I wrote a test case for this but the implementation doesn’t seem
to follow this instruction. It’s more likely to be *in the order of
keys that was defined by the user-agent*.
- Giving the fact this change is non-normative, we should either
ignore it or update the instruction to be *in the order of keys that
was defined by the user-agent*.
* ED L262
- Remove 4.3.1 (LocalStorage) Security.
- The former section claimed that user agents must throw a
SecurityError whenever any of the members of a Storage object
originally returned by the localStorage attribute are accessed by
scripts whose effective script origin is not the same as the origin of
the Document of the Window object on which the localStorage attribute
- There was discussion that this section wasn’t clear enough,
dating back to 2012. I couldn’t find any related topics in the mailing
list about why the editor removed this section after the Rec.
- My test case indicates none of Chrome/Firefox/Safari throws the
SecurityError in that case.
- This is a normative change and should be accepted in the second edition.
Other changes are more editorial and can be kept in the second
edition, imo. Moreover, the archives of the Issue section need to be
updated in the new document because the formal archives are no longer
A draft second edition of WebStorage(diff) is available in
GitHub. Please feel free to raise issues or PRs there.
FYI, according to the 2014 process document, to modify a Rec, we
can either go through FPWD->CR->PR->REC, or if we can prove wide
review for the changes, things will be easier, i.e., CR->PR->REC.
On 2015-4-30, at 8:02pm, Kostiainen, Anssi
<anssi.kostiai...@intel.com <mailto:anssi.kostiai...@intel.com>> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2015, at 15:46, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com
On 4/21/15 5:39 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
Is there a plan to publish an errata to sync the Web Storage Rec
 with the latest? I counted 8 commits cherry picked into the
Editor's Draft since Rec .
If no errata publication is planned, I'd expect the Rec to clearly
indicate its status.
Re the priority of this issue, is this mostly a "truth and beauty"
process-type request or is this issue actually creating a
problem(s)? (If the later, I would appreciate it, if you would
please provide some additional context.)
It was creating problems. Our QA was confused which spec was the
authoritative one, and wrote tests (additional ones, on top of the
w-p-t tests) against the Rec spec. These tests failed since Blink is
compliant with the latest, not the Rec. More context at:
The main thing blocking the publication of errata is a commitment
from someone to actually do the work. I also think Ian's automatic
push of commits from the WHATWG version of Web Storage to  was
stopped a long time ago so there could be additional changes to be
considered, and the totality of changes could include normative
changes. Did you check for these later changes?
No, I just observed the ED has evolved since the Rec publication.
There may be additional changes in the LS that haven't been picked up
to the ED.
If you, or anyone else, would like to help with this effort, that
would be great. (If it would be helpful, we could create a new
webstorage repo under github/w3c/, work on the errata in that repo
and redirect the CVS-backed errata document to the new repo.)
I can ask if our QA would be interested in contributing.
Personally, I think putting errata in a separate file - as opposed
to putting changes directly into  - is mostly "make work" and
fails the "principle of least surprise". However, I think the
consortium's various processes preclude us from doing what I
consider is "the right thing".
The best way would be to ensure TR reflects what is broadly
implemented. If that does not work out due to process reasons, then a
visible note at the top pointing to the authoritative spec would be
the second best option. That failing, the errata.