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

@aliams and @hober might have thoughts for Microsoft and Apple, respectively.

@asutherland should maybe have a second look for Mozilla.

My main concern with this is opaque responses. I'm worried this'll make it easier to determine their size. (I was actually wondering if we could make the origin opt-in to requiring CORS and only then give them estimates.)

Other than that, I guess I'd opt to exclude `other`, don't feel strongly on naming (but some investigation into existing identifiers probably make sense), and defining it all inline probably makes sense. Ideally this would follow from primitives the other specifications use to define their storage.

I'm also not super happy with Chrome planning to include obsoleted/proprietary APIs. That could easily make web compatibility issues worse.

cc @tomvangoethem 

-- 
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-438182726