W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2013

Re: TAG Comment on [Web Storage]

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:07:37 -0400
Message-ID: <51504C19.70403@arcanedomain.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Thank you, Art, for alerting us to this. I note that the TAG's comment [1], 
after briefly discussing various local storage and appcache mechanisms, stated:

----------------
The TAG believes it is important to consider more carefully the potential
advantages of providing a single facility to cover the use cases, of
perhaps modularizing the architecture so that some parts are shared, or if
separate facilities are indeed the best design, providing common data
access and manipulation APIs. If further careful analysis suggests that no
such integration is practical, then, at a minimum, each specification
should discuss how it is positioned with respect to the other.
----------------

I am not entirely clear on what if anything the WebApps group decided to do 
about this request. Would you please briefly clarify?

I should also point out that there has been considerable turnover in the 
TAG's membership since our comment was issued, and we have not since 
discussed this question. Maybe or maybe not opinions have changed. In any 
case, I think it would be useful and appropriate to document a bit more 
clearly the Web App groups response to the request above. Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Nov/0070.html

On 3/25/2013 8:47 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Hi Noah - FYI, WebApps agreed to publish a Proposed Recommendation of Web
> Storage
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0595.html>.
> As such, I have closed WebApps' Action-640.
>
> -AB
>
> On 11/30/11 12:57 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Noah - FYI, I updated [Action-640] to include the TAG's comment [LC-2]
>> (it originally was only for Ashok's personal comment [Ashok]) and updated
>> LC-2 to connect it to Action-640.
>>
>> -AB
>>
>> [Action-640] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/640
>> [LC-2]
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
>> [Ashok]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0837.html
>>
>> On 11/18/11 10:44 AM, ext Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>>> > Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document
>>> > for this LC:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Noah
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2011 10:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>> Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document
>>>> for this LC:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
>>>>
>>>> If anyone wants to propose extensions or changes to Web Storage, please
>>>> use
>>>> [Bugzilla] and please feel free to contribute to the group's [Database]
>>>> wiki e.g. to clarify the relationship between Web Storage and HTML5's
>>>> AppCache.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any additional feedback, please reply by November 25, the day
>>>> the CfC to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage ends [CfC].
>>>>
>>>> -Art Barstow
>>>>
>>>> [Bugzilla]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=WebAppsWG
>>>> [Database] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Database
>>>> [CfC]
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0998.html
>>>>
>>>> On 11/15/11 5:05 PM, ext Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>>>>> This is a comment from the W3C Technical Architecture Group on the last
>>>>> call working draft: "Web Storage" [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> The HTML5 Application Cache (AppCache) [2] and Local Storage [1] both
>>>>> provide client-side storage that can be used by Web Applications.
>>>>> Although the interfaces are different (AppCache has an HTML interface
>>>>> while Local Storage has a JavaScript API), and they do seem to have been
>>>>> designed with different use cases in mind, they provide somewhat related
>>>>> facilities: both cause persistent storage for an application to be
>>>>> created, accessed and managed locally at the client. If, for example, the
>>>>> keys in Local Storage were interpreted as URIs then Local Storage could
>>>>> be used to store manifest files and Web Applications could be written to
>>>>> look transparently for manifest files in either the AppCache or in Local
>>>>> Storage. One might also envision common facilities for querying the size
>>>>> of or releasing all of the local storage for a given application.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the Offline Web Applications Workshop on Nov 5, 2011 [3] there was a
>>>>> request for a JavaScript API for AppCache and talk about coordinating
>>>>> AppCache and Local Storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The TAG believes it is important to consider more carefully the potential
>>>>> advantages of providing a single facility to cover the use cases, of
>>>>> perhaps modularizing the architecture so that some parts are shared, or
>>>>> if separate facilities are indeed the best design, providing common data
>>>>> access and manipulation APIs. If further careful analysis suggests that
>>>>> no such integration is practical, then, at a minimum, each specification
>>>>> should discuss how it is positioned with respect to the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noah Mendelsohn
>>>>> For the: W3C Technical Architecture Group
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-webstorage-20111025/
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/offline.html#appcache
>>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/web-apps-ws/
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 13:08:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2013 13:08:10 GMT