W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Detailed comments for the current draft

From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:58:10 -0800
Message-ID: <5dd9e5c51001271058s8272ef0oce17762bf2ce2ddc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro

> 2. Values
> a.       3.1.2: isn't the requirement for "structured clones" too much? It
> would mean implementations would have to be able to store and retrieve File
> objects and such. Would it be more appropriate to say it's just graphs of
> Javascript primitive objects/values (object, string, number, date, arrays,
> null)?

If LocalStorage is able to store structured clones, then I'm not sure if
there's too much of an additional burden on implementations.  I think we
should either change both to "graphs of javascript primitives" or leave both
as "structured clones".

As a data point: does anyone currently plan on implementing the structured
clone requirement of the WebStorage spec?
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 18:59:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:22 UTC