- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:10:34 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:37 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Scott Wilson
> <scott.bradley.wilson@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 be rather strongly _implied_ that widgets will use HTML,
>> ECMAScript and CSS...
>
> Could we also similarly imply that the .localStorage API also be
> implemented? This is especially easy now that localStorage is becoming
> its own spec [1].
Well, my understanding was that we had to have Web Storage for API &
Events anyway since that's what implements preferences (and we need to
define how it's used so that we can get read-only keys). Even if
that's all there is, it'd be a little bit silly for a UA to support
Web Storage for the preferences but not in other contexts.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 09:11:12 UTC