Re: [IndexedDB] Detailed comments for the current draft

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro <>
> wrote:
>> 2. Values
>> a.       3.1.2: isn't the requirement for "structured clones" too much? It
>> would mean implementations would have to be able to store and retrieve File
>> objects and such. Would it be more appropriate to say it's just graphs of
>> Javascript primitive objects/values (object, string, number, date, arrays,
>> null)?
> If LocalStorage is able to store structured clones, then I'm not sure if
> there's too much of an additional burden on implementations.  I think we
> should either change both to "graphs of javascript primitives" or leave both
> as "structured clones".
> As a data point: does anyone currently plan on implementing the structured
> clone requirement of the WebStorage spec?

Yes, we do at mozilla. Storing File objects is definitely something
that we get requests for and that we see useful for a number of use
cases, such as offline mail, resumable background file upload, etc.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 19:12:04 UTC