- From: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:11:11 -0700
FWIW, I think it would be helpful to expose via some manner that the user is in an incognito/private/whatever mode, especially to plugins. (Right now none of us can really control what plugins are doing). If we exposed that fact, a page could check it and decide what it wants to do. To me, that feels a lot better than just saying "No, sorry, you don't get XYZ." 2009/4/7 Ian Fette (????????) <ifette at google.com> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Brady Eidson <beidson at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> >>> >>> How are cookies handled right now? Surely the issues should be pretty >>> much the same? >>> >> >> They are unspecified. From this thread I have learned that Chrome and >> Firefox start with no cookies. Safari starts with a snapshot of cookies at >> the point where the user entered private browsing mode. I would not be >> surprised if Opera or IE8 were subtley different from either of these two >> approaches. >> >> 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? >>> >> >> I strongly share Jonas' concern that we'd tell web applications that we're >> storing there data when we already know we're going to dump it later. For 3 >> and 4 both, we're basically lying to the application and therefore the user. >> Imagine a scenario where a user has no network connection and unknowingly >> left their browser in private browsing mode. Email, documents, financial >> transactions, etc could all be "saved" locally then later thrown away before >> they've had a chance to sync to a server. >> > > The same argument could be made for retaining cookies set during private > browsing ;-) > > >> >> >> I don't think 1, 2, or 5 are good ideas, since they make localStorage >>> semi-usable at best when privacy mode is enabled. >>> >> >> Apparently Firefox plans to implement #2, and so far I'm standing by >> WebKit choosing #5 for now. Options 1, 2, and 5 all avoid the problem that >> 3 and 4 have which is that we're lying about saving data we have no >> intention to save. >> >> ~Brady >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090407/7d51a82f/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 18:11:11 UTC