Yeah, but my argument is more that Incognito / Private / whatever is like starting from a boot cdrom with a filesystem that's in memory. The OS isn't pretending, nobody's lying to the app, that's just the way it is.<div>
<br></div><div>I think Michael summarized it well -</div><div><br></div><div>Copying it over and making it read-only violates privacy concerns.</div><div>Turning it off entirely removes functionality when it could perhaps be useful</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think that doing option 3, and perhaps providing a way for the app to know that we're in this mode so it can do whatever is appropriate (saving to the cloud more frequently, just not using localstorage all together, whatever is right for that app) solves those problems.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:16 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"><div>A user can, at any time, delete application resources from their file system while the application is in use, or before the application's next launch. They will suffer the consequences of their own action.</div>
<div>The operating system probably shouldn't chose to do so on its own, the same way the OS shouldn't chose to pretend a file is safely on disk when it's not.</div><div><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 6:12 PM, Ian Fette ($B%$%"%s%U%'%C%F%#(B) wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">And as of right now, afaict, a user / user agent can prune a database and not be in violation of the database spec :)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 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">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br><div><div>On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Ian Fette ($B%$%"%s%U%'%C%F%#(B) wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <font color="#000000"><br></font> </blockquote> <br></div> I strongly share Jonas' concern that we'd tell web applications that we're storing there data when we already know we're going to dump it later. For 3 and 4 both, we're basically lying to the application and therefore the user. Imagine a scenario where a user has no network connection and unknowingly left their browser in private browsing mode. Email, documents, financial transactions, etc could all be "saved" locally then later thrown away before they've had a chance to sync to a server.<div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The same argument could be made for retaining cookies set during private browsing ;-)</div></div></blockquote><br></div></div><div>I disagree, as cookies are already specified to be of unspecified persistence. I believe a user agent can - at any time - prune cookies from it's cookie store and not be in violation of the cookies spec.</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>~Brady</div></font></div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>