To be clear, I'm not trying to reopen the topic of giving cookie access to workers - I'm happy to restrict cookie access to document context (I probably shouldn't have brought it up again).<div><br></div><div>I do agree with Jeremy that we should rethink the spec language around cookie consistency to reflect what implementors are actually willing to build.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-atw<br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Jeremy Orlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jorlow@chromium.org">jorlow@chromium.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Benjamin Smedberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benjamin@smedbergs.us" target="_blank">benjamin@smedbergs.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>What kind of conflict? There is no need to "merge" individual cookies:</div>
whichever one was set (or removed) last wins.</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I think this strategy would work fine for cookies since the HTTP side of them is inherently racy. I think such behavior would be pretty counter-intuitive for localStorage, though.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If we did go with this strategy, I think we could give access to shared workers, and someone could use those if they needed better "atomicity".</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>