Re: [whatwg/storage] Moving text from HTML's web storage into the Storage Standard (#95)

> 1

The text you quoted loses the mention of _why_ user agents should offer this, namely upon user request or for security reasons.

> 2

Agreed, thanks for pointing that out

> 3: Firefox currently has this restriction, but we are thinking of removing it. As quotas are implementation-defined as per 2, I don't think we would be really disallowing anything. We're just not putting specific solutions in the specification that might not be ideal.

I think this comes to the crux of the disagreement here. I don't think of this as putting things in to the spec. I'm approaching this from the perspective of removing things from the spec. (At least, for https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/5560.) I'm not very comfortable removing things from the spec without some kind of confirmation, preferably multi-implementer.

> 4: Does it matter if implementers agree it's a bad model? Exhaustively testing this across all APIs feels like a waste of time if we all want to move past it.

Again, I'd love to see that implementer agreement expressed, if we're going to make normative removals. And I'd like to see tests, at least informal ones, for the specific API for which you're removing the spec text (localStorage/sessionStorage).

> 5: How is requiring particular UI user-friendly? I'm not sure we even know what the best UI would be here in our future partitioned world.

The text in question does not require a particular UI. It suggests (should) that a UI exist at all.

Again, it's a removal of a normative should statement, and I'd like to see multi-implementer agreement before removing normative statements.

> 6: Unless we define the cost of each operation exactly we're not going to get interoperability, so I'd rather have it be somewhat vague as I'm not sure we want to commit on how to serialize code units and such.

I still think adding the opposite statement would be better than leaving this ambiguous, especially if we're making a normative change in the spec. But I agree we're not going to get interop, so it's not a big deal.

-- 
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/95#issuecomment-654419759