- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:11:11 -0800
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> > 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