- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 22:01:29 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Olav Junker Kj?r wrote: > > > > Anyone have any concrete proposals? :-) > > How about a javascript structure which may be arbitrary deep, but only > may contain javascript built-in types (Object, Array, string, number, > bool, Date etc.)? This would be very easy to use, although it might be > confusing for authors that you can save a string but not e.g. a > textnode. That's vaguely what I ended up doing, though I actually did allow Nodes as well by special-casing them. (Haven't mentioned Arrays though, should I?) > A web page with an URL should be "reentrant", e.g. if you bookmark it > and visit it later, it should work. Pages which is dependent on info > generated on other pages should either have that info encoded in the > URL, or be accessed through a POST request. In the first case, the > context is preserved, in the second the page can't (easily) be > bookmarked and revisited, since browsers treats pages which is the > result of a POST request differently, which avoids the problem of the > missing context. > > Ordinary web sites are usually "stateless" in the sense that you can > visit the pages in any order. Stateful transactions (like payment) are > usually handled as a sequence of POST's. > > Web applications on the other hand are usually very stateful, but > precisely because they are usually confined to a single page with a > single URL, you dont get the "reentrance" problem. You can only bookmark > the initial state, which is safe. Yes. > If an app spans several pages with distinct URL's, but is stateful in > such a way that pages are dependent on local state generated on earlier > pages, it gets very fragile. We might start to see lots of "You seem to > be visiting this page out of context" messages on Google :-) This is already a problem, even with just cookies. I'm not sure how we can solve it, though. > Thats not to say that the proposal is a bad idea. I see some very strong > use cases for it. For example, I might have written half a page of text > in a CMS, but when i hit "save", I'm informed that the network > connection is broken, and it wont get fixed before monday. In this case > it would be very nice if the client side script could save data in a > persistent local store - only accesible to this page, of course. Exactly. This should now be possible with globalStorage[]. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2005 15:01:29 UTC