W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:25:25 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Message-id: <F2757A6D-A943-4DCD-B700-ABE0593F5F0F@apple.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>

On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:

>> I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,  
>> just like
>> the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,  
>> CORS,
>> Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't
>> believe it really fits into the Web Storage spec (if anything, I  
>> think we
>> should split Web Storage into two further specs, not add a third  
>> wholly
>> independent feature to it). However, I would definitely support an  
>> publication of Nikunj's proposal, as I have for other proposals.
> That is encouraging. I will be glad to edit an FPWD that includes B- 
> tree, interception, and programmable cache, if the WG so prefers.

It seems to me that Berkley DB style database storage, and request  
interception / programmable cache are orthogonal ideas and should  
arguably be separate drafts. I would assume request interception and  
programmable cache are usable regardless of what client-side storage  
APIs are available, much as HTML5 Application Cache is independent of  
these APIs. If anything, it seems more closely related to AppCache  
than to any proposed storage solution.


Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:54 UTC