- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:15:50 -0500
- To: ext Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:09 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Marcos Caceres wrote: >>>> >>>> Cheer up, I can think of _much_ worst things that have popped >>>> out of >>>> the W3C onto the Web than Web Storage:) >>> >>> Yeah but they typically have minimal impact on the deployed Web, >>> unlike the storage mutex problem. >> >> So hang on... Why are going to LC if this is such a massive issue? > > Well from the point of view of the spec, the issue is resolved. It > "just" > has unfortunate performance implications for multi-process UAs. > > >> Is this issue clearly marked in the spec with a link to at least an >> email thread where the problem is described? > > Not currently; I can add some text if you think that would be > useful. I > had assumed everyone was pretty much fully aware of the issue. Adding some text to the spec would indeed be consistent with the following LC entrance criteria: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call 2. Fulfill the relevant requirements of the Working Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements documents, or report which relevant requirements have not been fulfilled. ]] -Art Barstow
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 14:16:54 UTC