- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:34:57 -0700
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Brady Eidson <beidson at apple.com> wrote: > I started writing a detailed rebuttal to Linus's reply, but by the time I > was finished, many others had already delivered more targetted replies. > > So I'll cut the rebuttal format and make a few specific points. > > - Many apps act as a "shoebox" for managing specific types of data, and > users are used to using these apps to manage that data directly. See > iTunes, Windows Media Player, iPhoto, and desktop mail clients as examples. > This trend is growing, not waning. Browsers are already a "shoebox" for > history, bookmarks, and other types of data. > Claiming that this data is "hidden" from users who are used to handling > obscure file management scenarios and therefore we shouldn't fully respect > it is trying to fit in with the past, not trying to make the future better. > > - No one is suggesting that UAs not have whatever freedom they want in > deciding *what* or *how much* to store. We're only suggesting that once the > UA has committed to storing it, it *not* be allowed to arbitrarily purge it. > > - One use of LocalStorage is as a cache for data that is transient and > non-critical in nature, or that will live on a server. But another, > just-as-valid use of LocalStorage is for persistent, predictable storage in > the client UA that will never rely on anything in the cloud. > > - And on that note, if developers don't have faith that data in > LocalStorage is actually persistent and safe, they won't use it. > I've given talks on this point 4 times in the last year, and I am stating > this as a fact, based on real-world feedback from actual, real-world web > developers: If LocalStorage is defined in the standard to be a purgable > cache, developers will continue to use what they're already comfortable > with, which is Flash's LocalStorage. > > When a developer is willing to instantiate a plug-in just to reliably store > simple nuggets of data - like user preferences and settings - because they > don't trust the browser, then I think we've failed in moving the web > forward. > > I truly hope we can sway the "LocalStorage is a cache crowd." But if we > can't, then I would have to suggest something crazy - that we add a third > Storage object. > > (Note that Jens - from Google - has already loosely suggested this) > > So we'd have something like: > -SessionStorage - That fills the "per browsing context" role and whose > optionally transient nature is already well spec'ed > -CachedStorage - That fills Google's interpretation of the "LocalStorage" > role in that it's global, and "will probably be around on the disk in the > future, maybe" > -FileStorage - That fills Apple's interpretation of the "LocalStorage" role > in that it's global, and is as sacred as a file on the disk (or a song in > your media library, or a photo in your photo library, or a bookmark, or...) > > The names are just suggestions at this point. Just for the record, I (now) agree with everything you said here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090826/46f947db/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 17:34:57 UTC