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