[whatwg] RFC: Alternatives to storage mutex for cookies and localStorage

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Chris Jones <cjones at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> In HTML5 we generally take the approach that if a UA is unable to satisfy
>> spec semantics due to resource limits or other problems in the environment,
>> then it's OK to deviate from the spec. Applying that principle here, we
>> would not need to provide database consistency in the presence of these
>> failures.
> I don't like the idea of the spec creating an illusion that's impossible
> for browser vendors to maintain.

Then the question is which spec features should be specified as resilient to
failures in the environment.

The other major unresolved questions in my mind are whether there is a class
of apps worth addressing that wants to use localStorage and shouldn't be
saddled with an explicitly transactional API, and whether the compatibility
break is even possible. Only the wider community can answer these...

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090907/120cf4e1/attachment.htm>

Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 15:18:36 UTC