- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:40:01 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 19:07, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> >
> > I believe you can test if a key is in the storage area using:
> >
> > if (key in storage) { ... }
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > if ('document' in window.localStorage) { ... }
>
> I didn't find that in the spec anywhere. Is it somehow implicit and I
> just missed it? Or will it be specified sometime in the future?
It's the net effect of this line in the spec:
# The names of the supported named properties on a Storage object are the
# keys of each key/value pair currently present in the list associated
# with the object.
...combined with the definitions in the WebIDL spec.
> > I think everyone agrees that we need a storage mechanism in workers;
> > the question is what it should be. That's basically the same as the
> > question of what should happen with the Web Database spec -- I don't
> > think we would want to end up with multiple storage systems in
> > workers. The answer to this question depends on the result of this
> > debate in the Web Apps WG.
>
> Since I am not a w3c member and thus cannot subscribe to the Web Apps WG
> mailing list, just want to say good luck to whomever pushes this. I
> truly hope you guys can agree on a single storage solution that the
> browsers all implement. It would definitely help keep my PhD thesis
> relevant after it's finished. =)
Anybody can join the public-webapps mailing list, not just W3C members.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 15:40:01 UTC