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

Re: [IndexedDB] Detailed comments for the current draft

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:11 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001271111va4c4430u5f131c5a72d2137c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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?

Yes, we do at mozilla. Storing File objects is definitely something
that we get requests for and that we see useful for a number of use
cases, such as offline mail, resumable background file upload, etc.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 19:12:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT