[whatwg] localStorage mutex - a solution?
rob.ennals at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 17:36:50 PST 2009
You are /partly/ correct.
The intention behind this proposal is to have a spec that matches what
implementations do (or that we can reasonably expect that they will
do, given minor effort), so that users know what idioms will work.
It isn't just a matter of PR for implementors. If the spec says that
certain idioms work, but those idioms actually fail for all real
implementations, then that is bad.
Moreover, given the problems with the storage mutex as currently
specified, some browsers don't currently implement it at all - which
is really bad. This proposal makes the storage mutex easy enough to
implement that it would hopefully be more widely implemented -
although in a weaker manner.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Rob Ennals <rob.ennals at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In spec language, I think it should be "MAY" release.
> It seems to me that the only difference between what we have now (in
> the spec), and your suggestion, would be that implementations could in
> more cases claim to follow the spec. I.e. the only difference seems to
> be one of PR for implementations. Nothing that would actually help web
> / Jonas
More information about the whatwg