W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Re: TAG Action-354 Review client-side storage API?s

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:59:16 -0500
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFA657E495.DA7645AD-ON852576D4.005D4BA6-852576D4.005D4DDC@lotus.com>
OK, thank you.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
02/24/2010 11:52 AM
Please respond to ashok.malhotra
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: TAG Action-354 Review client-side storage 
API?s


Yes, it is ready for a brief discussion.
All the best, Ashok


noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Ashok: you have not marked your action PENDING REVIEW, but your note 
seems 
> to merit telcon discussion?  Whether it gets scheduled for this week 
> depends in part on whether I hear from you before the agenda is frozen, 
> which >should< be in a few hours but may well take until evening, 
Eastern 
> Time.  There are some other high priority items, so we may not get to it 

> anyway, but I'll be glad to at least list it if you think it's ready for 

> discussion.  Thank you.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> 02/23/2010 11:31 AM
> Please respond to ashok.malhotra
> 
>         To:     "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        TAG Action-354 Review client-side storage API’s
>
>
> My earlier note on this action is at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0008.html

>
> On the Feb 5 telcon I was asked to do some more work on ACTION-354, 
> partly to respond to Mark
> Nottingham -- 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jan/0077.html --
> who asks "I think the key question here is what the relationship of 
> these new proposals to existing ones;
> the Web already has caching, and it already has stateful cookies (both 
> of which, BTW, are currently
> being revised in the IETF)."
>
> As I said in my earlier note, there are two drafts that replace/extend 
> cookies. 
> Web SQL Database <http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/>
> Indexed Database API <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDB/>
> I asked Ian Hickson, the author of the first of these drafts the 
> rationale behind them.  Ian replied:
> "Cookies are unreliable, sent to the server, have a small quota, and 
> have a terrible API. Web Storage is intended to fix that.
>
> Web SQL Database, Web Storage, and the new Indexed Database ... have 
more 
> or less the same use cases, except the database versions are intended 
for 
> more structured indexable and queryable data. For example, consider 
GMail 
> going offline. You want a highly 
> structured data store. Obviously cookies aren't going to cut it if you 
> have gigabytes of mail."
>
> The other spec we discussed on the Feb 5 call was Programmable HTTP 
> Caching and Serving <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/>
> The rationale behind this is easier to figure out. Essentially, it 
allows 
> modification of the cache under program control (adding/deleting 
values). 
> It allows the cache to be
> shared across multiple browser windows and it allows the cache to be 
used 
> while the user 
> is offline.
>
> Some feel that to enable real applications to be run from the browser 
you 
> need to
> be able to work with a database.  The two specs discussed above 
facilitate 
> this but,
> in my personal opinion, do not go far enough.  It seems to me that what 
> you need is
> the ability to run SQL queries from Javascript.  The SQL queries could 
be 
> identified
> by URIs.  The result is then packaged in a suitable form and sent to the 

> client where
> it is unpacked and added to the application cache.
>
> 


Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 16:59:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT