[whatwg] Proposal for Web Storage expiration

Nicholas Zakas nzakas at yahoo-inc.com
Tue Aug 3 11:46:50 PDT 2010

Is it easier in terms of implementation issues or general consensus?

Commander Lock: "Dammit Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe!"
Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas at sicking.cc] 
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:51 PM
To: Nicholas Zakas
Cc: Scott Hess; Alexandre Morgaut; whatwg at lists.whatwg.org; Jeremy Orlow
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposal for Web Storage expiration

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Nicholas Zakas <nzakas at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Yes, for IndexDB I think having a per-storage area expiration date completely makes sense. Do you expect that IndexedDB will become a successor to sessionStorage/localStorage? My belief is that the simple key-value store paradigm would still end up being the default client-side data storage utility, and would therefore benefit from having a per-key expiration time to mimic cookie usage.

I suspect it will be much easier to add to IndexedDB than to
localStorage/sessionStorage. I don't expect the latter to go away,
though generally it seems like people are disliking localStorage
enough that it's hard to get any changes made to it.

/ Jonas

More information about the whatwg mailing list