On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Peter Kasting <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pkasting@google.com">pkasting@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Jeremy Orlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jorlow@chromium.org" target="_blank">jorlow@chromium.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Yes, this is pretty disconcerting since there's been OVERWHELMING support for LocalStorage being treated as user-critical on this thread.</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div>The spec says basically what you want except that it uses "should". It seems like UAs and authors would both be satisfied with this; I don't expect any UA vendor to wantonly discard local storage data.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>If some platforms don't treat local storage as sacred, it's unlikely web developers are going to program one version for flash/whatever and one version for local storage on browsers that meet their requirements. Especially since the only way you could treat these differently is by user agent detection which has historically been a bad thing for the web.</div>
</div>