W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > September 2012

Re: ISSUE-17: Key Attributes - Proposed resolution

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:56:04 -0400
Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org, Mitch Zollinger <mzollinger@netflix.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <2929171E-77A9-4C56-8B10-D07BD57D79F7@mozilla.com>
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>

On Aug 27, 2012, at 9:50 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:

> Arun: While deriving from "Storage" is nice, I get the impression
> WebStorage is the black sheep of web APIs at the moment - in part, due
> to its synchronous nature. It seems overkill, but an alternative would
> be to expose an entire IndexedDB IDBEnvironment on every Key. Am I
> crazy for thinking that?

I don't think that the synchronous nature of WebStorage is what accords it any sort of "black sheep" status.  Rather, I think that it gets a mixed reception owing to loyalists to the SQLite based API which Webkit-based browsers (and Opera) implemented.  Those APIs are on life-support AFAICT.  (Also, it seems that IndexedDB/WebStorage allows for asynchronous uses -- am I way off on this?)

What I'd propose is taking advantage of the upcoming "joint sessions" (TPAC) and schedule a session (one hour meeting?) to meet with the WebApps WG and talk about IndexedDB.  I'm not sure Jonas is attending, but I think other editors of the IndexedDB specification are attending.  

I'll also take an action to chase this reasoning up within Mozilla; others (MSFT, Google, Opera) should take similar action items :)

My own $0.02 is that exposing an alternate storage environment on every Key may be a false friend, till we determine that it is necessary to replicate things for WebCrypto purposes only *(and it might be -- I'm just not sure yet).

-- A*
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:56:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:13 UTC