- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:10:52 +0100
- To: "Arve Bersvendsen" <arveb@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:28:59 +0200, Marcos Caceres > <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> While I, in principle, agree that not replicating existing storage APIs >>> is a >>> good thing, are we sure that all widget implementations will implement >>> HTML5? >> >> As Jonas said, we would just mandate that implementations implement >> just that one part of HTML5. Or, we just rip that part of HTML5 and >> put it in our spec and make sure we keep them synced. > > If we are to do one of these, I'd very much prefer not to have to keep it > continously updated until 2022. > Agreed. If the Working Group feels comfortable with citing HTML5 for this feature, I think we should. >>> Also, are we sure that a preference storage may not have additional >>> requirements that make them a bad match (such as encryption of stored >>> data)? >> >> I also agree with Jonas that if it's good for widgets, it's probably >> good for HTML5 as a whole. For V1 of widgets, I think that HTML5's >> storage meets r26 [1]. But if new requirements arise (such as data >> encryption) we should work with the HTML-WG on that. > > Note that encryption, which was my example here, may be an implementation > detail. I was just trying to say something about the requirement for HTML5 > and Widgets might be different. Understood. Appologies, I didn't mean to imply you meant it as an actual feature request. Having said that, the requirements for v1 in regards to this feature are clearly captured in the requirements doc. As we now have consensus within the working group regarding the requirements, I don't foresee them changing for V1. If we need to fork for V2, that should hopefully be ok. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 17:11:35 UTC