On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Michael Nordman wrote:
The statement in section 4.3 doesn't appear to specify any
behavior... its just an informational statement.
The statement in section 6.1 suggests to prohibit the development of
a UI that mentions local storage as a distinct repository seperate
from cookies. This doesn't belong in the spec imho.
I think both of these statements should be dropped from the spec.
If all browsers go through great lengths to ensure that this data is
as persistent as a local user file, but one browser decides it's only
a cache and can prune it at will, then developers cannot rely on it.
I don't think 4.3 should be dropped - I think it should be
strengthened to actually protect the data from any action not
authorized by the user.
Browsers who wish to treat it as a local cache that they can prune at
any time could give the user a checkbox labeled "Let me delete your
stored data whenever I want" and this would qualify. ;)
Yes, that's an unrealistic, hyperbolic example, but I stand by the
point it illustrates!
~Brady
PS: I am ambivalent about section 6.1, other than to reiterate I don't
think the current language actually reflects the intended message.
Ultimately I think UAs will have to prop up out-of-band
permissioning schemes to make stronger guarantees about how long
lived 'local data' that accumulates really is.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Aaron Boodman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jeremy Orlow<[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ok, well I guess we should go ahead and have this discussion
now. :-) Does
> anyone outside of Apple and Google have an opinion on the matter
(since I
> think it's pretty clear where we both stand).
FWIW, I tend to agree more with the Apple argument :). I agree that
the multiple malicious subdomains thing is unfortunate. Maybe the
quotas should be per eTLD instead of -- or in addition to --
per-origin? Malicious developers could then use multiple eTLDs, but at
that point there is a real cost.
Extensions are an example of an application that is less cloud-based.
It would be unfortunate and weird for extension developers to have to
worry about their storage getting tossed because the UA is running out
of disk space.
It seems more like if that happens the UA should direct the user to UI
to free up some storage. If quotas were enforced at the eTLD level,
wouldn't this be really rare?
- a
