- From: Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:41:17 +0200
- To: Christophe Dumez - SISA <ch.dumez@sisa.samsung.com>
- Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christophe Dumez - SISA <ch.dumez@sisa.samsung.com> wrote: > Zoltan, why are you saying this is a valuable feature? I was referring to the functionality itself, and because it may also be a common pattern with other API's. When I set an alarm, I would like to associate it with a context which I want to fetch later. > Do you have any use case where a Database API (IndexedDB or LocalStorage) would not be a suitable replacement? If you put it this way - yes, a DB API can even replace many sysapp API's too ;). But it depends on how are you going to use the storage, which still needs to be specified. > > Unlike what your statement suggests, the main argument to remove the "data" argument is not that we "cannot easily find properly formalized way to describe it". I felt we know what is the use case, but since there was some controversy on how to specify it, it was suggested to drop the use case for later consideration, which is not the good outcome IMO. > It is because there is a existing alternative that would fit the same needs. I see the privacy argument stronger. Is it solved by the DB? Does it prevent the misuses enumerated before? Is it as easy to use? Best regards, Zoltan
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 21:41:45 UTC