Re: Structured clone in WebStorage

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow <> wrote:
> On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that
>>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured clone
>>> algorithm rather than strings.  And yet there isn't a single
>>> implementation
>>> who's implemented this.  I've talked to people in the know from several
>>> of
>>> the other major browsers and, although no one is super against
>>> implementing
>>> it (including us), no one has it on any of their (even internal)
>>> roadmaps.  It's just not a high enough priority for anyone at the moment.
>>> I feel pretty strongly that we should _at least_ put in some
>>> non-normative
>>> note that no browser vendor is currently planning on implementing this
>>> feature.  Or, better yet, just remove it from the spec until support
>>> starts
>>> emerging.
>> I agree. We have no plans to support this in the near future either. At
>> the
>> very least, I think this should be noted as a "feature at risk" in the
>> Call
>> for Implementations [1].
> I don't have a strong preference for removing this feature or marking it as
> a Feature At Risk when the Candidate is published.
> It would be good to get feedback from other implementers (Maciej?, Jonas?,
> Anne?). If no one plans to implement it, perhaps it should just be removed.

I won't be the person implementing it, but fwiw I highly value having
structured clones actually work.  Any time I talk about localStorage
or similar, I get people asking about storing non-string data, and not
wanting to have to futz around with rolling their own serialization.


Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:07:13 UTC