- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:43:51 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 29, 2010, at 01:35 , Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> * We'd like to expire data in IndexDB after some time. This will >>> likely be based on heuristics, such as haven't visited the site for an >>> extended period of time, though possibly keep the data a bit longer if >>> it was put in the database during offline mode and thus likely >>> contains data from the user. So in other words, we'd like to prevent >>> data staying on the users system indefinitely for a site that the user >>> no longer uses. >> >> Just to clarify: you're looking to expire storage that's marked as >> persistent [or something like that] or that's marked as temporary, or >> you're not planning to distinguish strongly between types of storage? > > We're definitely looking at expiring both. Though possibly with > different levels of aggressiveness. I find this somewhat puzzling. As a user, if you've shown me a UI telling me you're asking for permanent storage to store the data I'm using in conjunction with a given app, you'd better never, ever so much as muse about expiring it, no matter how meekly. If you do, and I lose all those captioned kittens I'd been working on but put on the back burner, you can be sure I'll show up at your place to have a discussion about aggressive expiration. What am I missing? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 09:44:16 UTC