- From: Shannon <shannon@arc.net.au>
- Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:56:31 +1100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Shannon wrote: > >> I don't see any value in the "user-agent specified amount of time" delay >> in stopping scripts. How can you write cleanup code when you have no >> consistency in how long it gets to run (or if it runs at all)? >> > > The "user-agent specified amount of time" delay is implemented by every > major browser for every script they run today. > > How can people write clean code when they have no consistency in how long > their scripts will run (or if they will run at all)? > > Why is this any different? > > Why does that matter? I think you're asking the wrong question. As designers of a new spec the question should be "how can we fix this?". If the answer is to include a mandatory cleanup window for ALL scripts then that should be considered (even if that window is 0 seconds). >> If you can't rely on a cleanup then it becomes necessary to have some >> kind of repair/validation sequence run on the data next time it is >> accessed to check if it's valid. >> > > You need to do that anyway to handle powerouts and crashes. > That was the point of my concern. Given that the only 100% reliable cleanup window is 0 seconds it would be more consistent (and honest) to make that the spec. Offering a cleanup window of uncertain length is somewhat pointless and bound to cause incompatibilities across UAs. Is there a strong argument against making 0 seconds mandatory, given that anything else is inconsistent across UA, architecture and circumstance? > It's not clear which document the cookie would be for. localStorage is > as light-weight than cookies (lighter-weight, arguably), though, so that > should be enough, no? > > Fair enough. Shannon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081116/c2e393d3/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 16 November 2008 02:56:31 UTC