- From: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:52:03 -0700
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bw3c at gmail.com> > wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Brady Eidson <beidson at apple.com> wrote: > > 1 - Disable LocalStorage completely when private browsing is on. Remove > it > > from the DOM completely. > > 2 - Disable LocalStorage mostly when private browsing is on. It exists > at > > window.localStorage, but is empty and has a 0-quota. > > 3 - Slide a "fake" LocalStorage object in when private browsing is > enabled. > > It starts empty, changes to it are successful, but it is never written > to > > disk. When private browsing is disabled, all changes to the private > > browsing proxy are thrown out. > > 4 - Cover the real LocalStorage object with a private browsing layer. It > > starts with all previously stored contents. Any changes to it are > pretended > > to occur, but are never written to disk. When private browsing is > disabled, > > all items revert to the state they were in when private browsing was > enabled > > and writing changes to disk is re-enabled. > > 5 - Treat LocalStorage as read-only when private browsing is on. It > exists, > > and all previously stored contents can be retrieved. Any attempt to > > setItem(), removeItem(), or clear() fail. > > How are cookies handled right now? Surely the issues should be pretty > much the same? > In Chrome, basically like option 3. It's a new profile so it starts with no cookies, cookies can pile up but when the session ends they go away. > > > Option 3 is simple to implement and option 4 would difficult to implement > > efficiently. Both would lead to bizarre behavior where data that the > > application thought was saved really wasn't. > > I certainly can't think of how 3 could ever cause a problem. It > should be the same as the user just logging in from a computer they > haven't used before, shouldn't it? > yes > > I'm not certain about 4. What would be a concrete case where 4 would > break, but normal use from multiple computers would not? > > I don't think 1, 2, or 5 are good ideas, since they make localStorage > semi-usable at best when privacy mode is enabled. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090407/ed494250/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:52:03 UTC