Re: [whatwg/storage] Add UsageDetails dictionary (#69)

annevk commented on this pull request.

Thanks for writing this up and thanks for your patience!

At a high-level I'm wondering about these things:

1. Are other implementers on board with exposing this?
2. Are there bugs filed against those implementations?
3. Is there a PR to make the tests stop being tentative that we can land together with this assuming all is in order? (There's a couple minor things I wonder about with the tests we can maybe tackle there, e.g., I don't see a need to do `|| 0` for the new fields as they should always be defined in a compliant implementation.)

I also left a couple remarks inline.

> @@ -178,7 +178,21 @@ larger <a>site storage quota</a>. Factors such as navigation frequency, recency
 bookmarking, and <a href="#persistence">permission</a> for {{"persistent-storage"}} can be used as
 indications of "popularity".
 
+The <dfn export>application cache site storage usage</dfn> for an <a for=/>origin</a>
+<var>origin</var> is a rough estimate of the amount of bytes used in <a>Application Cache</a>
+in <var>origin</var>'s <a>site storage unit</a>. [[!HTML]]

This one can contain opaque responses right? Given that this is a new place where we expose that information, I think we should also detail how to address the issue. Same for caches below.

>  
+The <dfn export>caches site storage usage</dfn> for an <a for=/>origin</a>
+<var>origin</var> is a rough estimate of the amount of bytes used in <a attribute>caches</a> API

This should be something like `{{Caches}}` or `{{Cache}}`, no? Referring to the getter seems a little weird.

-- 
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/pull/69#pullrequestreview-249893752