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: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:23:47 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=VWC3GJchaJiY1j8NQ+htPUCcwh5G_VCaX5Dj4C2W7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> > Note that there are currently major browsers that do not follow the spec
> as
> > currently written and have explicitly said that they have no plans to do
> so.
>
> If browsers can agree on what to implement, update the spec to reflect
> that.  If they can't and we don't think they ever will, update the
> spec to say behavior is undefined.  Either way, it's no less worthy of
> REC-track specification than other preexisting features that are
> flawed but in practice not removable from the platform.
>
>
I think browsers are relatively speaking closer in implementation to each
other than to the spec currently.  Would it be too much work to come up with
a specification that did not include the structured clone algorithm and did
not include the storage mutex?  That seems to be what browsers need to
support for compatibility, and so it would be ideal to capture that in some
form.  Such a specification would have inherent and unavoidable data races
(as do current and future implementations), so it would be a stretch to
consider it "recommended", but it would reflect reality.

- James
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 22:24:12 GMT

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