Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

FWIW, the "transient" vs. "permanent" storage support is exactly why I
eagerly await an implementation of EricU's Filesystem API.  Being able to
guarantee that the UA will not discard potentially irreplaceable data is of
paramount importance to web apps that want to work in an offline mode.

I also find that the current arbitrary quota limit of 5MB per domain makes
local storage APIs unusable for all but the most rudimentary apps (e.g.,
sticky note demo apps).  There is an asymmetric distribution of local
storage needs out there that no one is yet addressing (e.g., a photo- or
video-related app might need GBs of local storage, an offline mail app might
need tens or hundreds of MB, a TODO list app might only need kilobytes,
etc.).

I wholeheartedly support any effort to coordinate quota management among all
of the various local storage APIs.  The issue of quota limits is something
that browser vendors will need to address soon enough, and it's probably
best left up to them.  The need for "permanent" storage across all local
storage APIs, though, is something that in my opinion should come out of the
standardization process.

--mike clement