W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [IndexedDB] Granting storage quotas

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:43:51 +0200
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7199C9C1-BE18-4BF0-ABDF-D0D9EB259559@berjon.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:07 UTC