- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:44:17 -0800
- To: Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, ivan.demarino@orange-ftgroup.com, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am a little bit late in the debate, but I agree with scott proposal and > arguments. Ideally the widget itself shoud not be aware of HTML5 storage > implementation, even if the widget storage API use the same signature . And > mostly because of the same need: some architecture would require a server > side implementation of the settings instead of a client side, especially if > you want to provide the same account on different platforms. Hmm.. i'm a bit confused. My proposal was to use a server side backend for the .localStorage API. This would mean that there is no need to introduce a new API. >From my understanding of the original issue that was brought up in this thread, using a separate API rather than .localStorage would only be a short term solution, until browsers start natively supporting the widget API. So that does not seem like a good solution. However it seems possible to use other solutions to implement a server side backend for localStorage by using the callbacks defined in the HTML5 spec. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 23:44:57 UTC