Yes. An incognito session starts with a blank profile, so no cookies, no cache, ...<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Brady Eidson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beidson@apple.com">beidson@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">That's interesting. I'm not exactly clear what an "incognito" session starts out with. Does it start without any cookies, for example?<div>
<br></div><font color="#888888"><div>~Brady</div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br><div><div>On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Ian Fette ($B%$%"%s%U%'%C%F%#(B) wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that is in memory (plus or minus... the cache will never get written out to disk, although of course the memory pages could get swapped out and hit the disk that way...). The implication is that, for many of these features, things could just naturally get handled. That is, whilst the session is active, pages can still use a database / local storage / ... / and at the end of the session, when that profile is deleted, things will go away. I personally like that approach, as there may be legitimate reasons to want to use a database even for just a single session. (Perhaps someone wants to edit a spreadsheet and the spreadsheet app wants to use a database on the client as a backing store for fast edits, I don't know...). I just don't like the idea of saying "Sorry, incognito/private/... means a class of pages won't work" if there's no reason it has to be that way.<div>
<br></div><div>In short, I would prefer something closest to Option 3. It lets pages just work, but respects the privacy wishes of the user. (AppCache / persistent workers are the one exception where I think Option3 doesn't apply and we need to figure something out.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Ian<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Brady Eidson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beidson@apple.com" target="_blank">beidson@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A commonly added feature in browsers these days is "private browsing mode" where the intention is that the user's browsing session leaves no footprint on their machine. Cookies, cache files, history, and other data that the browser would normally store to disk are not updated during these private browsing sessions.<br>
<br> This concept is at odds with allowing pages to store data on the user's machine as allowed by LocalStorage and Databases. Surly persistent changes during a private browsing session shouldn't be written to the user's disk as that would violate the intention of a private browsing session.<br>
<br> Let's take the specific case of LocalStorage, which is what I am currently working on with WebKit. In attempting to fix this bug I came up with a few possible solutions:<br> <br> 1 - Disable LocalStorage completely when private browsing is on. Remove it from the DOM completely.<br>
2 - Disable LocalStorage mostly when private browsing is on. It exists at window.localStorage, but is empty and has a 0-quota.<br> 3 - Slide a "fake" LocalStorage object in when private browsing is enabled. It starts empty, changes to it are successful, but it is never written to disk. When private browsing is disabled, all changes to the private browsing proxy are thrown out.<br>
4 - Cover the real LocalStorage object with a private browsing layer. It starts with all previously stored contents. Any changes to it are pretended to occur, but are never written to disk. When private browsing is disabled, all items revert to the state they were in when private browsing was enabled and writing changes to disk is re-enabled.<br>
5 - Treat LocalStorage as read-only when private browsing is on. It exists, and all previously stored contents can be retrieved. Any attempt to setItem(), removeItem(), or clear() fail.<br> <br> Option 1 is simple but painful for applications to get such different behavior.<br>
Option 2 is only a little more complicated, but also seems unsatisfactory.<br> Option 3 is simple to implement and option 4 would difficult to implement efficiently. Both would lead to bizarre behavior where data that the application thought was saved really wasn't.<br>
<br> For now we're going with option 5. setItem() during private browsing will fail with the QUOTA_EXCEEDED_ERR the spec mentions. removeItem() and clear() will silently fail, since the spec assumes they always succeed and doesn't provide a failure mechanism.<br>
<br> It seems the same issues apply to all the storage mechanisms, be it LocalStorage, SessionStorage (with optional session resuming), and Databases.<br> I have a few questions I think it would be wise for the spec to address for all of these:<br>
1 - What *should* the specified behavior be?<br> 2 - If read-only ends up being the specified behavior, should we have a mechanism for removeItem() and clear() to demonstrate that they failed?<br> <br> Thanks,<br><font color="#888888"> ~Brady<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>