W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: RfC: moving Web Storage to WG Note; deadline June 29

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:30:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimDCMZ-+HqmEuJZ44HedKR0G4f9LA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> Given: Indexed Database API provides an alternative to Web Storage, the
> relative severity of this issue, there is no plan to fix this issue, _this
> is a Request for Comments to stop work on this spec and for [1] (or a
> similar fix to bug 12111) to serve as the basis of a WG Note_ (as was done
> for the Web SQL Database spec).

I object to this.  Web SQL Database was never interoperably
implemented, or adequately specified.  Web Storage has been
implemented in every major browser for a few years, and tons of
content depends on it.  If we realize in retrospect that it's a bad
feature, it's no different from all the other bad features that are
part of the web platform, like the HTML parser.  We need to specify it
normatively and test it for interoperability.  If we don't want to add
more features to it, that's a separate issue.  There's no reason for
it not to be in a Recommendation if all browsers realistically have to
implement it.

I'm also wondering how IDB is any sort of replacement for
localStorage.  How many lines is the IDB equivalent of
"localStorage.foo = 'bar'", again?  If the answer is more than about
three, it's not remotely realistic to expect many authors to move from
localStorage to IDB.  (I'm pretty sure it's at least ten, but I looked
at trying to figure out and determined it was far too much effort to
go to for an illustrative example.  Which tells you something.)
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 22:31:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT