Thank you. Please let me know if there are any significant changes to the
status of this.
Noah
Chair: W3C Technical Architecture Group
On 11/30/2011 12:57 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Noah - FYI, I updated [Action-640] to include the TAG's comment [LC-2] (it
originally was only for Ashok's person
Noah - FYI, I updated [Action-640] to include the TAG's comment [LC-2]
(it originally was only for Ashok's personal comment [Ashok]) and
updated LC-2 to connect it to Action-640.
-AB
[Action-640] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/640
[LC-2]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebSt
I should also clarify that the TAG itself has not at this point reached
consensus on the goals or scope for any work we might do in the storage
area, though we have given Ashok an action to investigate what, if
anything, might be useful.
One possible direction would be for the TAG to do what i
Hi Mark:
The idea is to involve some of those folks in this effort.
All the best, Ashok
On 11/23/2011 2:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
What effect will this effort have on the implementations? Are they listening?
Cheers,
On 23/11/2011, at 11:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi All,
Off-list, As
What effect will this effort have on the implementations? Are they listening?
Cheers,
On 23/11/2011, at 11:49 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Off-list, Ashok and I talked about his comments and TAG's Web Application
> Storage work [1]. Ashok would welcome WebApps' participation in tha
Hi All,
Off-list, Ashok and I talked about his comments and TAG's Web
Application Storage work [1]. Ashok would welcome WebApps' participation
in that work. Thus, for the WebApps group - this is call for contributors.
If you are interested in contributing to this area, please respond to
this
On 11/20/11 8:33 PM, ext ashok malhotra wrote:
The idea is not to remove APIs.
We have several client-side storage facilities that cover different
but overlapping
usecases. Can we step back and look at what we have and come up,
perhaps, with a
smaller set of facilities and better coordinated
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:47:05 +0100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> For example, some browsers still (!) support , but that doesn't
>> mean we should promote its use.
>
> FWIW, is defined as a feature in HTML5 browsers are expected to
> i
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:47:05 +0100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
For example, some browsers still (!) support , but that doesn't
mean we should promote its use.
FWIW, is defined as a feature in HTML5 browsers are expected to
implement.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
>
> A quick search of Google code [1], Github [2][3], and Bitbucket [4][5] would
> indicate otherwise, IMO. For example, the TinyMCE WYSIWYG editor that is
> included in every Wordpress installation (currently estimated at 65,787,814
> sites [6])
On 11/20/11 7:27 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:30:15 -0500, Mark Nottingham
wrote:
Yes, if you configure your browser to do so, you'll be assaulted with
requests for a "test db" from many Web sites that use common frameworks.
I don't think that this should count as "use."
I
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:30:15 -0500, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Yes, if you configure your browser to do so, you'll be assaulted with
requests for a "test db" from many Web sites that use common frameworks.
I don't think that this should count as "use."
I do think now is precisely the time to be
The idea is not to remove APIs.
We have several client-side storage facilities that cover different but
overlapping
usecases. Can we step back and look at what we have and come up, perhaps, with
a
smaller set of facilities and better coordinated APIs.
All the best, Ashok
On 11/20/2011 3:42 PM
On 21/11/2011, at 10:42 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> You're welcome to tilt at that windmill, but the chance that you get
> these APIs removed from browser is approximately zero.
There's a difference between the W3C and browser vendors promoting these as the
future of the Web as-is, and supporting t
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Yes, if you configure your browser to do so, you'll be assaulted with
> requests for a "test db" from many Web sites that use common frameworks.
>
> I don't think that this should count as "use."
Indeed. That is not the sort of use I'm r
Yes, if you configure your browser to do so, you'll be assaulted with requests
for a "test db" from many Web sites that use common frameworks.
I don't think that this should count as "use."
I do think now is precisely the time to be asking this kind of question; these
features are NOT yet used
> Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document
> for this LC:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
Thank you.
Noah
On 11/18/2011 10:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking
Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document
for this LC:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
If anyone wants to propose extensions or changes to Web Storage, please
use [Bugzilla] and please feel free to contribute to the group
Speaking for myself now, and not necessarily for the TAG:
I agree with those who say or imply that it's late for making incompatible
changes to the Web Storage specification. I'm less clear that's the case
for appcache, given comments about its many problems at the workshop last
week, but just
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> Perhaps. But widely implemented does not necessarily imply widely used. In
>> any case, support for or use of a feature of a WD or CR does not imply it
>> must be present in REC.
>
>Use of a feature does, in fact, impl
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Perhaps. But widely implemented does not necessarily imply widely used.
Is anyone really suggesting that Web Storage isn't widely used?
In any case, support for or use of a feature of a WD or CR does not imply
> it must be present in REC.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Perhaps. But widely implemented does not necessarily imply widely used. In
> any case, support for or use of a feature of a WD or CR does not imply it
> must be present in REC.
Use of a feature does, in fact, imply that, unless there are *very
Perhaps. But widely implemented does not necessarily imply widely used. In
any case, support for or use of a feature of a WD or CR does not imply it
must be present in REC.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM, wrote:
> >* From:* ext Glenn Adams [gl...@skynav.com]
> *> *
> > Could you quantify "wi
Extend, not delete.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:51 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:
> But we should give it a try, no?
> The spec are still Working Drafts.
> All the best, Ashok
>
> On 11/15/2011 2:47 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> These APIs are quite widely used on the web. It seems unlikely that
>> we'll be
> From: ext Glenn Adams [gl...@skynav.com]
>
> Could you quantify "widely"?
I think this definition of "widely used" is useful for this context:
http://caniuse.com/#search=storage
Personally, I see little to negative value in ignoring the fact the "ship has
sailed" for this spec.
-AB
On Tue,
Chromium devs put forward a unified quota API recently.
localStorage provides 5 megs of UTF16 storage; or about 2 megs of storage for
binary files saved as base64 strings. It's terrible for that use.
appCache had some Apis in existing proposals for programatically adding items.
I don't know if
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:51 PM, ashok malhotra
wrote:
> But we should give it a try, no?
> The spec are still Working Drafts.
The status in the W3C Process is largely irrelevant when determining
if the web depends on something.
~TJ
But we should give it a try, no?
The spec are still Working Drafts.
All the best, Ashok
On 11/15/2011 2:47 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
These APIs are quite widely used on the web. It seems unlikely that
we'll be able to delete either of them in favor of a single facility.
Adam
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011
Could you quantify "widely"?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> These APIs are quite widely used on the web. It seems unlikely that
> we'll be able to delete either of them in favor of a single facility.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Noah Mendelsohn
> wrote:
These APIs are quite widely used on the web. It seems unlikely that
we'll be able to delete either of them in favor of a single facility.
Adam
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> This is a comment from the W3C Technical Architecture Group on the last call
> working draft:
Sorry I messed up the subject of the first copy of this note. (I was
checking to make sure I got the title of the working draft right, put it in
the body of the note, and forgot the subject line). Please accept my
apologies...the risks of working in a hurry while running out the door.
Noah
On
This is a comment from the W3C Technical Architecture Group on the last
call working draft: "Web Storage" [1].
The HTML5 Application Cache (AppCache) [2] and Local Storage [1] both
provide client-side storage that can be used by Web Applications. Although
the interfaces are different (AppCache
32 matches
Mail list logo
