Re: [whatwg/storage] Proposal: Add detailed usage breakdown in estimate() (#63)

Hey @annevk - I work with @inexorabletash on Chrome. We have google properties that are very interested in this, we're ready to move forward with implementation.  Here's our current thinking around IDL:
```webidl
dictionary StorageEstimate {
  unsigned long long usage;
  unsigned long long quota;
  StorageUsageDetails usageDetails;
};

dictionary StorageUsageDetails {
  unsigned long long indexedDB;
  unsigned long long caches;
  unsigned long long serviceWorkerRegistrations;
  unsigned long long other;
};
```

Would you be open to a PR for the spec?  We're hoping to be able to land this experimentally in Chrome soon with tentative web platform tests.

Outstanding questions:
1. Do we want to include the `other` field in the UsageDetails?  In either case we have unresolved, implicit ambiguity.
    * If we do include this, it would leave developers questioning what exactly `usageDetails.other` represents.
    * If we exclude the property, developers are left with a different form of ambiguity:  The sum of each value in the usage details could potentially be less than the top level `usage`.
    * In either case, we would need to clearly document to resolve said ambiguity.
2. What are the naming conventions?
    * Should these adhere to conventions by using pascalCase, or should they refer to the spec short names?  Please share any other ideas you may prefer to the two listed.  Note: the proposed keys match the property names used to access the corresponding APIs.
3. As noted up-thread, future specs could use a partial dictionary to extend the set of members. Do we want to define this initial set of members  in the storage spec itself or push that to the other specs (Indexed DB, Service Workers) that are defining things? 

Is there anything else we should resolve before moving forward with an experimental implementation in Chrome? Have we heard about any interest in the overall API from Microsoft or Apple (i.e. are there contacts we should cc?)

Please note, Chrome intends on reporting `applicationCache` and some other obsolete and/or non-standard storage systems like `fileSystem` and `webSQL`.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/storage/issues/63#issuecomment-437990804