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 >> FPWD >> 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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:26:07 UTC