[whatwg] Cross-domain databases; was: "File package protocol and manifest support?"

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Fri Jun 10 16:23:22 PDT 2011

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Brett Zamir wrote:
> With IndexedDB apparently gaining traction, I'd like to reiterate my 
> proposal for cross-domain shared databases. Though I'll admit I'm not 
> sure I understand all of the concerns raised earlier, I do want to offer 
> my own rebuttals to these counter-points as I understand them (and 
> subsequently highlight some additional advantages):
> While cross-domain shared workers might be more ideal for sites which 
> wanted more granular control of how their shared data was accessed, and 
> no doubt a positive idea for sites wishing to go to the trouble to set 
> it up, my strong feeling is that making one's data shared should also be 
> possible in an easy a manner as setting up the database itself. 
> Requiring the developer to create their own API for others to access 
> their database would no doubt A) prevent some sites which might be open 
> to sharing their data from doing so, and B) Add barriers for those 
> wishing to mash-up different sites' data, as it would require study of 
> not only the site's unique data store, but also its means of allowing 
> access to it.

While I think there is validity to what you say here, the biggest question 
in my mind is whether there is really a demand for this yet.

Given that it is possible to share a database with <iframe>s, shared 
workers, and postMessage(), I think we should first see how many people 
actually do that. If it turns out to be a common thing to do, then it 
makes sense to specifying something.

See also this entry in the FAQ:


Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list