W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [widgets] localStorage vs preferences

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:45:32 +0200
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A9B6E611-18F3-4BD6-A919-808DD7FEFCD0@berjon.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
On Jul 20, 2009, at 16:08 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> In the widgets API spec, what are the advantages of having a
> widgets.preferences attribute when the window.localStorage is already
> available on the window object?
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Drop widget.preferences, but require a UA to implement
> [WebStorage] (which we already do!).
> 2. Pre-populate the window.localStorage with the value of
> <preference> elements in the config document (no events are fired
> during pre-population!).
> 3. "Protect" read-only preferences, meaning:
>      A. At runtime, throw a NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED_ERR exception
> upon any attempt to invoke the setItem() or removeItem() methods.
>      B. upon the attempted invocation of the clear() method, a user
> agent must not remove the key-values of the protected preference from
> a storage area.
>
> WDYT?

I think it's dodgy. Basically this would mean reusing a well-known  
attribute but giving it different behaviour, which in general is a bad  
idea. The "vanilla" localStorage would never throw in such ways, and  
would clear() the protected preferences. This change means that  
localStorage won't work the same way for a given document if that  
document is in a widget or not. I don't think that's a good idea.

The cost of having preferences there is very low, and it makes sense  
semantically. Why remove it?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 14:46:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT