[whatwg] Web Storage: apparent contradiction in spec

The statement in section 4.3 doesn't appear to specify any behavior... its
just an informational statement.

The statement in section 6.1 suggests to prohibit the development of a UI
that mentions local storage as a distinct repository seperate from cookies.
This doesn't belong in the spec imho.

I think both of these statements should be dropped from the spec.

Ultimately I think UAs will have to prop up out-of-band permissioning
schemes to make stronger guarantees about how long lived 'local data' that
accumulates really is.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jeremy Orlow<jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Ok, well I guess we should go ahead and have this discussion now.  :-)
>  Does
> > anyone outside of Apple and Google have an opinion on the matter (since I
> > think it's pretty clear where we both stand).
>
> FWIW, I tend to agree more with the Apple argument :). I agree that
> the multiple malicious subdomains thing is unfortunate. Maybe the
> quotas should be per eTLD instead of -- or in addition to --
> per-origin? Malicious developers could then use multiple eTLDs, but at
> that point there is a real cost.
>
> Extensions are an example of an application that is less cloud-based.
> It would be unfortunate and weird for extension developers to have to
> worry about their storage getting tossed because the UA is running out
> of disk space.
>
> It seems more like if that happens the UA should direct the user to UI
> to free up some storage. If quotas were enforced at the eTLD level,
> wouldn't this be really rare?
>
> - a
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090825/7486cdb2/attachment.htm>

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 15:31:40 UTC