On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:46 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I had a discussion with Anne on IRC about using the Storage interface
and XHR [1]. He recommended that we recommend support for Storage only
on user agents that support HTML5. With regards to XHR, the same
applies: it would be a property of
On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:37 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Apr 2009, at 15:33, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
You will have this problem regardless of how you solve this issue
if you
do not also require a specific
These are common practices that are ready to be standardised to
realize a benefit for widget developers and widget users.
The argument of user agents having to support two storage mechanisms
for widgets is a strawman: the cost for a UA to support the Widget
Preferences (Storage) API and
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:26:15 +0200, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
These are common practices that are ready to be standardised to
realize a benefit for widget developers and widget users.
The argument of user agents having to support two storage mechanisms
for widgets is a
On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:46 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
I had a discussion with Anne on IRC about using the Storage interface
and XHR [1]. He recommended that we recommend support for Storage only
on user agents that support HTML5. With regards to XHR, the same
applies: it would be a property of
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Apr 2009, at 15:33, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
You will have this problem regardless of how you solve this issue if you
do not also require a specific scripting language, markup language, etc.
It seems to
