Re: Structured clone in WebStorage

On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> 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 personally would like to see it implemented in Firefox (and other
> browsers), but I don't feel super strongly. It's something that we
> likely will be discussing in a few weeks here at Mozilla.
> My understanding is that many people across many browsers have thought it was a cool idea and would have been happy to have seen it implemented.  But no one has done so.
> Which is why I think we should _at least_ add a non-normative note stating the situation to the spec.  Once it's being implemented then, by all means, we can remove it.  But who knows how much longer it'll be before anyone actually implements it.

I don't think it is necessary for specs to include non-normative notes about the current implementation status of particular features.

I would be ok with marking the feature "at risk" if it still lacks implementations by the time Web Storage goes to CR.


Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 20:55:06 UTC