Re: [w3c/editing] clarifications for the pickling design proposal (Issue #393)

@polx 
> Are we running into a dangerous archive of consents that users would forget about? Maybe expiring them would be useful.

Chromium browsers follow the permission model described [here](https://w3c.github.io/clipboard-apis/#clipboard-permissions). This is per origin and gets triggered regardless of the formats being read/written via the async API.

> The problem of counting the formats' names is a bit strange to me. 100 sounds too small for extreme cases... I would prefer several hundreds.

This limit was chosen because of the atom table size restriction on Windows. It is system wide and not limited to any particular app. Once the atom table is exhausted, the system basically goes into a bad state that is not recoverable. [Here ](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20150319-00/?p=44433)is a blog post about it.

> In the pickling format, I am not sure I understood how binary formats will be stored

The payload is in terms of raw bytes. That should work for binary formats?

> Finally, would the set of (web and desktop) apps that have been visited by a user not be something useful for the user itself?

I don't think I understand the question. Are you asking what happens if the destination app doesn't have support for the custom format copied from another app? The answer to this question is, custom formats by definition are not readable by apps that don't have support for it.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/393#issuecomment-1062429812
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/393/1062429812@github.com>