- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:16:28 +0000
- To: public-sysapps@w3.org
I've been looking at the "data" option of this API and I'm a bit concerned that it adds yet another database/datastore to the platform. I'm wondering why localStorage and/or IndexedDB are insufficient that this API requires its own long lived datastore? Given that Alarm objects as currently specified have a long-lived identifier, can't that identifier be used to associate the alarm's data in either localStorage or IndexedDB? I could see the rationale for sending data to the platform if the platform was then able to do something meaningful with that data. For example, if the data contained a message, and that message was displayed to the user independently of the application (although that doubles as a notification or just using an alert). I've also noted some of the privacy concerns I have with this additional data store [1]. Having data only stored in the currently designated places of the platform allows us to better manage privacy as well as gets rid of yet another potential attack vector. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Feb/0019.html -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 11:16:59 UTC