- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:23:22 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Brett Zamir wrote: > > With IndexedDB apparently gaining traction, I'd like to reiterate my > proposal for cross-domain shared databases. Though I'll admit I'm not > sure I understand all of the concerns raised earlier, I do want to offer > my own rebuttals to these counter-points as I understand them (and > subsequently highlight some additional advantages): > > While cross-domain shared workers might be more ideal for sites which > wanted more granular control of how their shared data was accessed, and > no doubt a positive idea for sites wishing to go to the trouble to set > it up, my strong feeling is that making one's data shared should also be > possible in an easy a manner as setting up the database itself. > Requiring the developer to create their own API for others to access > their database would no doubt A) prevent some sites which might be open > to sharing their data from doing so, and B) Add barriers for those > wishing to mash-up different sites' data, as it would require study of > not only the site's unique data store, but also its means of allowing > access to it. While I think there is validity to what you say here, the biggest question in my mind is whether there is really a demand for this yet. Given that it is possible to share a database with <iframe>s, shared workers, and postMessage(), I think we should first see how many people actually do that. If it turns out to be a common thing to do, then it makes sense to specifying something. See also this entry in the FAQ: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 16:23:22 UTC