- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:22:55 -0700
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Joćo Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn@chromium.org>
- Message-ID: <j2nfa2eab051004201822w3d610332gc4a154984a9798d@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>wrote: > >> On 4/20/2010 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >>> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm >>> offline >>> and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm >>> reconnected to the internet. >>> >> I think a smart browser would include "am I offline" in it's heuristic for >> granting storage space. > > > Granting storage space is only part of the problem. > > Extrapolating from what you said, I guess I could see us keeping track of > which origins have ever been accessed offline and making sure that data is > never deleted without consulting the user. > > But, that doesn't solve this use case: something tike TiddlyWiki which > lives totally on your system and is not supposed to be synced to the cloud. > The problem is that if you used this on your desktop, which is never > offline, then the browser would not know it's precious. > > We could use the existence of an appCache manifest as a hint. I guess that > might be good enough. But then we still have the malware problem. > > >> Anyone wanting to debate whether or not the UA should be free to clean >>> up >>> "persistent storage" without asking the user should read >>> >>> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/thread.html#22289 >>> and >>> the various other threads it spawned first and only re-start things if >>> they >>> have new information to add. >>> >> I read it, but I don't see a consensus formed before it died off. Am I >> missing something? >> > > It was kind of difficult to track. The basic consensus was > that persistent data can and should not be deleted without explicit user > approval. > > There was no such consensus. That was one position taken by some and not by others. > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: >> >> This way of thinking is incompatible with offline web apps. If I'm >> offline and I "send" and email, it needs to stay queued up to send until I'm >> reconnected to the internet. >> >> >> I think the problem is that data loss could occur regardless of >> "guarantees". >> > > Sure, and that came up in the original giant "thread". Even if something's > in the cloud, it could be lost. So what it really comes down to is best > effort. > > Here are the classes of storage I hear you asking for: >> >> 1. temporary (no likelihood of data being being stored after session ends) >> > > I don't think this type is very interesting. The only use case is when you > have so much data that the UA might need to spill to disk. And if you're > doing that, I'd imagine you'd want to use one of the other storage types > anyway. > > >> 2. evictable (no limit per site, except global limits, eviction candidates >> chosen arbitrarily, including while application is running) >> 3. non-evictable (no eviction, but data loss possible, limited by user) >> > > These 2 are what we're talking about. >
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 01:23:28 UTC