- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:24:53 -0700
- To: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com>
- Cc: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>, Mike Clement <mikec@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj@o-micron.com> wrote: > Could we create an additional optional parameter for an open request with > the type of permanence required? Or is it not a good idea? I don't think we can expose the type of permanence to the user in any sort of sane way. The fact that we have to bug the user at all for permanent storage is already bad, but necessary. As long as everyone thinks it's fine to expose an identical user interface for all types of permanent storage, then I'm cool with it. (I don't see any problem with doing so, given the types of permanence listed earlier.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 16:25:45 UTC