- From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:11:37 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Doug Schepers <doug@w3.org>
- CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:46 AM > To: ext Eric U; Doug Schepers > Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG > Subject: Re: FileSystem compromise spec > > On 11/15/12 7:39 PM, ext Eric U wrote: > > As discussed at TPAC, there's little support for the current FileSystem API, but > > some support for a new API, and I promised to put forth a compromise proposal. > > In order to do that, I'd like to hear 1) what kinds of changes would make it > > more popular; 2) who I'm trying to convince. There are a number of folks who > > have said that they're not interested in a FileSystem API at all, so I'd rather > > concentrate my efforts on those with skin in the game. > > Note that even though we are a service provider and not a browser vendor, I do consider us to have "skin in the game". > > * It's designed to handle both the sandbox and the > > outside-the-sandbox use cases. For folks interested in just the sandbox and > > no future expansions, that seems like wasted effort, and a sandbox-only API > > could be simpler. It's not clear to me that there is anyone interested in > > just the sandbox and no future expansions, but if there is, please speak up. > > I've certainly heard from folks with the opposite goal. I am still looking for evidence that IndexedDB provides a high-performance, scalable, cross-domain alternative to native filesystem access. I've seen conflicting information on that, and will gather this information with whatever tests can be found to validate performance of browsers for IndexedDB. > It seems like it would be useful to look at these various file and > database specs from a high level use case perspective (f.ex. "one way to > address UC X is to use spec X"). If anyone is aware of some related > docs, please let me know. Doug - wondering aloud here if this is > something webplatform.org might cover or if you know of someone that > might be interested in creating this type of documentation? In the Web & TV IG I will be leading a task force specifically to address the recording and storage of media use cases, where storage options are the key focus. If someone can prove to us that "in-the-sandbox" storage addresses the needs (high-performance, scalable, cross-domain) then great; otherwise we will keep looking. > > > > I'd like to hear from folks who are interested, but not in the current spec. > > I note that this request seems to exclude (or recommend silence) of counter-points from those that *want the current specs* as mentioned by Eric. So if there is a lack of contribution from those that support the other use cases noted (e.g. out-of-the-sandbox storage), it should not be taken as consensus with the alternative as discussed in this thread. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 17:13:10 UTC