Re: [quota-api] Rethink about the storage model (#2)

> Note that if you think boxes is too much, we could start with v1. Expose requestPersistent(), persistentPermission(), getEstimate(), and getPersistentEstimate()

That's roughly what we (chrome) are planning on doing. Though we'd only have getEstimate() because v1 will consist of marking the entire origin as "durable" or not.

Speaking of, to start bikeshedding, I propose we switch to using "durable" for the new capabilities we're talking about - "persistent" was already used in the existing quota api to mean something a little different. I don't want to overload the term.

Back to real stuff, [the Storage wiki page](https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Storage#API) proposes exposing a requestPersistent() method to code running in a worker. We plan on showing a permission prompt at least some of the time, which might not be possible from a worker. Is FF going to have a similar problem?

I signed up for the extensible web summit in San Francisco this approaching monday (April 20) mostly to talk about durable storage. Anyone else going and want to talk in person? @wanderview?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/quota-api/issues/2#issuecomment-93616252