- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:50:03 -0800
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>wrote: > 2010/3/11 Ian Fette (????????) <ifette at google.com>: > > Yes, but I think there may be uses of things like storage for non-offline > > uses (pre-fetching email attachments, saving an email that is in a draft > > state etc.) If it's relatively harmless, like 1mb usage, I don't want to > > pop up an infobar, I just want to allow it. So, I don't really want to > have > > an infobar each time a site uses one of these features for the first > time, > > I'd like to allow innocuous use if possible. But at the same time, I want > > apps to be able to say up front, at a time when the user is thinking > about > > it (because they just clicked something on the site, presumably) "here's > > what I am going to need". > > This is precisely my preferred interaction model as well. Absolutely > silent use of a relatively small amount of resources, just like > cookies are done today, but with a me-initiated ability to authorize > it to act like a full app with unlimited resources (or at least much > larger resources). > In addition to more storage, another difference that ideally would come along with the "full-app-privilege" is for the user agent to avoid evicting that data. So stronger promises about keeping that data around relative to unprivileged app data. Also, this is being discussed in terms of "apps". Can more than one "app" be hosted on the same site? And if so, how can their be stored resources be distinquished? > ~TJ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100311/2edce240/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 13:50:03 UTC