- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:07:02 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Mike Wilson wrote: > > A naive solution for this would be to add something similar to a > browser_context-scoped cookie. There have been several requests for things along these lines; I'd recommend taking them up with the working group working on cookies. > Invisible Document state for GET requests > There currently is no support for associating invisible state > with a Document delivered with GET. This is also an area where > web frameworks have worked around this problem, and typical > workarounds are to use url-based (visible) state or to switch to > POST instead. This is by design, as I understand it. It sounds like a feature request for the HTTP working group, though. Going forward I would expect authors to use AJAX-like interaction models so that there is only one page, and the state is all scripted. > Document state > There currently is no support for associating script state on the > Document level. Any state saved in DOM or script global object > will be lost on a page reload. You can use pushState() to add an entry if your state changes relative to the original state described in the resource. > Use cases would include single-page Ajax applications that want > to store data independent of a certain history entry, but at the > same time not sharing it with other page loads (Documents) of the > same application in the history of the same browsing context > (otherwise sessionStorage could be used). That's not a use case, that's a description of what it enables. When would this ever happen? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 11 July 2009 22:07:02 UTC