- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:37:02 +0200
- To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
It's probably worthwhile to be more explicit about the requirements here: In Guido's and my discussion, we assumed a requirement to have persistent storage that might be available to *all* instances of a widget. That's different from per-instance storage which could indeed be solved easily within the currently proposed framework. I'm not sure whether the current requirements document actually answers this question. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:02, Scott Wilson wrote: > In our system when a widget is instantiated we generate our own > instance hashes which we append to the widget URL as a parameter, > and our Storage implementation uses this parameter when it needs to > make a request back to our prefs web service to load preferences, or > to set a preference. > > I imagine any UA would put a similar mechanism in place in its > Storage implementation to sandbox the preferences for widget > instances; does that need to be specified? > > On 24 Apr 2009, at 09:37, Arve Bersvendsen wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:17:07 +0200, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Guido Grassel is reminding me that the HTML5 storage API keys off >>> origin. Thy means another wrinkle or the uri scheme/origin >>> discussion. >> >> Note that only the instantiations of storage, through the >> localStorage and sessionStorage, are using origin. The storage >> interface itself does not, so I do not see any immediate >> consequences with regards to preferences or any uri scheme >> discussion. >> >> -- >> Arve Bersvendsen >> >> Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/ >> >
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2009 14:37:16 UTC