[whatwg] Web Storage: apparent contradiction in spec

Michael Nordman michaeln at google.com
Tue Aug 25 15:31:40 PDT 2009

The statement in section 4.3 doesn't appear to specify any behavior... its
just an informational statement.

The statement in section 6.1 suggests to prohibit the development of a UI
that mentions local storage as a distinct repository seperate from cookies.
This doesn't belong in the spec imho.

I think both of these statements should be dropped from the spec.

Ultimately I think UAs will have to prop up out-of-band permissioning
schemes to make stronger guarantees about how long lived 'local data' that
accumulates really is.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Aaron Boodman <aa at google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jeremy Orlow<jorlow at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Ok, well I guess we should go ahead and have this discussion now.  :-)
>  Does
> > anyone outside of Apple and Google have an opinion on the matter (since I
> > think it's pretty clear where we both stand).
> FWIW, I tend to agree more with the Apple argument :). I agree that
> the multiple malicious subdomains thing is unfortunate. Maybe the
> quotas should be per eTLD instead of -- or in addition to --
> per-origin? Malicious developers could then use multiple eTLDs, but at
> that point there is a real cost.
> Extensions are an example of an application that is less cloud-based.
> It would be unfortunate and weird for extension developers to have to
> worry about their storage getting tossed because the UA is running out
> of disk space.
> It seems more like if that happens the UA should direct the user to UI
> to free up some storage. If quotas were enforced at the eTLD level,
> wouldn't this be really rare?
> - a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090825/7486cdb2/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list