Re: [whatwg] Dirty Property (Was: Markup-related feedback)
Ian Hickson writes: On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Garrett Smith wrote: 1. Form `dirty` property. Set to false, initially. Set to true when the user has interacted with any of the form's controls to make them dirty. What's the use case? Situations where I could have used something like this: • A content management system where the user is previewing their content and can either publish it as it is or make further changes and preview it again. The ‘Publish’ button needs to check that no changes have been made (so that all content gets previewed before publishing). • An application which involves editing records (such as an address book), where closing the page without saving should throw warning that the changes will be lost, unless there haven't been any changes. Can you work around this by just catching 'input' events on the form? Yes. Though on a form with many fields, a mixture of different types of controls, it can be tedious to get it right, and I'm not sure if it's possible to follow the behaviour of some native apps (such as Vim) where making a change and then pressing ‘undo’ unsets the ‘dirty’ flag. (Note I'm not arguing that the feature is, on balance, worth including, merely answering the questions you asked.) Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2
[whatwg] Fwd: Range.createContextualFragment in SVG contexts
(My apologies if you get this twice. I haven't seen my message on the public archives http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/, so I suspect that it was dropped.) On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote: Hi Victor, Victor Costan wrote: I'm trying to re-implement Range.createContextualFragment in Blink following this whatwg spec: http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/#extensions-to-the-range-interface There are two issues I'd like to discuss, related to the use of createContextualFragment in SVG contexts. 1) If a Range's context is ansvg element, I think the XML parsing algorithm should be selected, so the elements in the resulting DocumentFragment would get the SVG namespace. This way, inserting the fragment in ansvg tree would have the intended effect. Examples: https://bug711821.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=582654 (the red circle should be completely covered by a black circle) https://codereview.chromium.org/115693010/diff/70001/ LayoutTests/fast/dom/Range/create-contextual-fragment- from-svg-element-range.html I think it would be unexpected that XML parsing is used here, when HTML parsing was used to get the SVG fragment in the document in the first place. Maybe the HTML fragment parsing algorithm should be changed to push the svg element on to the stack of open elements so that the parser will interpret the circle .../ as foreign content? Issues related to Range.createContextualFragment() in SVG contexts are starting to come up in bug reports: - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087715 - https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=426400 Should Cameron's idea for changing the HTML fragment parsing algorithm be implemented? One other idea is to change the in body insertion mode spec so that there are 'A start tag whose tag name is one of: defs, g, svg' steps, but I personally think that Cameron's idea is much better. Daniel
Re: [whatwg] Fwd: Range.createContextualFragment in SVG contexts
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com wrote: Issues related to Range.createContextualFragment() in SVG contexts are starting to come up in bug reports: - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087715 - https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=426400 Should Cameron's idea for changing the HTML fragment parsing algorithm be implemented? Now Firefox' fragment parsing is fixed, it seems it behaves the same as Chrome. Not sure what's going on. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] Fwd: Range.createContextualFragment in SVG contexts
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com wrote: Issues related to Range.createContextualFragment() in SVG contexts are starting to come up in bug reports: - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087715 - https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=426400 Should Cameron's idea for changing the HTML fragment parsing algorithm be implemented? Now Firefox' fragment parsing is fixed, it seems it behaves the same as Chrome. Not sure what's going on. I linked to the Firefox bug report mainly for context. Firefox' behavior seems correct now, and I can confirm that the modified jsFiddle http://jsfiddle.net/hfvz7srp/1/ is working correctly in Firefox Nightly 36.0a1 (2014-10-28). The issue that I am referring to is the behavior of Range.createContextualFragment() when the context node is not an SVG svg element, but some other SVG element such as an SVG defs or g element.
Re: [whatwg] Fwd: Range.createContextualFragment in SVG contexts
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Daniel Trebbien dtrebb...@gmail.com wrote: The issue that I am referring to is the behavior of Range.createContextualFragment() when the context node is not an SVG svg element, but some other SVG element such as an SVG defs or g element. If you change the range's start node to e.g. the defs element, you'll find Firefox reports two child nodes, just like Chrome. I think given https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17924 and https://html5.org/r/7768 we were probably reading the specification wrong. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] Gapless playback problems with web audio standards
Can this be used for gapless looping of the same track? This is a common request for game developers looking to seamlessly loop a music or ambience track: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=353072 Ashley On 27 October 2014 20:09, Dale Curtis dalecur...@chromium.org wrote: Hi, Chrome developer here, gapless playback should work with both WebAudio and Media Source Extensions (MSE). I've fixed bugs in both implementations, so if you have some test cases in Chrome that fail, I'd love to see them. As luck has it, I've recently put an article together on how to use MSE for gapless playback: http://dalecurtis.github.io/llama-demo/index.html We'll be posting it to HTML5Rocks in the near future. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. You also note that setTimeout() is not precise enough for your usage; you should take a look at the WebAudio scheduler or using WebWorkers: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/audio/scheduling/ https://github.com/chrisguttandin/worker-timers If you only need your project to work in the foreground using requestAnimationFrame is also an option. I'd first try to schedule as much as you can in advance though. - dale
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Brett Zamir wrote: The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. Why can't you just do the same as used to be done? Download the resource locally (save, using a href download), then upload it to the new site (open, using input type=file)? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] New feature: better integration with browser find interface
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Mitar wrote: If you open a long document in Google Docs not whole document is rendered immediately so DOM does not contain whole document. If [...] you invoke find through browser menu you get browser's original find interface which does not really work and does not find anything on page not yet rendered. [...] Mozilla pdf.js HTML5 PDF library [...] Rendering whole PDF would consume too much resources so only pages visible to the user are added to DOM. Browser thus cannot find content on pages not visible. [...] Have same workaround of intercepting a ctrl-f keystroke. [...other similar use cases...] - styling of how matched text looks, and how highlighted text looks (when user selects to highlight all matches in UAs that support that) - some browsers reuse selection style (Firefox), some browsers have special style you cannot style with CSS (Chrome) The various use cases you gave didn't seem to be derived from this need. How much of a need is this? - telling to the web application that search is being in progress and what is being searched for That does seem to be something that is necessary. I've filed a bug to track it: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27186 - telling UA that it should retry the search because content has been changed/rendered/modified The last is important because for web application which dynamically render the content, after search has already find matches on the page, if content is changed, browsers do not retry the search. This is the most evident with browsers which allow highlight all feature, like Google Chrome. This is just a bug in the browsers. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Brett Zamir wrote: The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. Why can't you just do the same as used to be done? Download the resource locally (save, using a href download), then upload it to the new site (open, using input type=file)? Because that's a terrible user experience? --tobie
Re: [whatwg] Gapless playback problems with web audio standards
Yes, both WebAudio and MSE can do that, though I'd probably lean towards WebAudio for anything game related. Using WebAudio just create a buffer source and set the loop attribute: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AudioBufferSourceNode.loop The way you could do it with MediaSource would be to double buffer the track such that you're creating an infinite stream. I.e. append a new copy of the track as time reaches the end of the previously appended track. To avoid unnecessary memory usage you would remove stale copies of the data once played. - dale On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: Can this be used for gapless looping of the same track? This is a common request for game developers looking to seamlessly loop a music or ambience track: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=353072 Ashley On 27 October 2014 20:09, Dale Curtis dalecur...@chromium.org wrote: Hi, Chrome developer here, gapless playback should work with both WebAudio and Media Source Extensions (MSE). I've fixed bugs in both implementations, so if you have some test cases in Chrome that fail, I'd love to see them. As luck has it, I've recently put an article together on how to use MSE for gapless playback: http://dalecurtis.github.io/llama-demo/index.html We'll be posting it to HTML5Rocks in the near future. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. You also note that setTimeout() is not precise enough for your usage; you should take a look at the WebAudio scheduler or using WebWorkers: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/audio/scheduling/ https://github.com/chrisguttandin/worker-timers If you only need your project to work in the foreground using requestAnimationFrame is also an option. I'd first try to schedule as much as you can in advance though. - dale
Re: [whatwg] Gapless playback problems with web audio standards
Web Audio is unsuitable for music tracks due to needing to download and fully decompress in to memory the entire track before starting playback. It would be nice if this could just work with the HTML5 audio loop tag. Ashley On 28 October 2014 18:06, Dale Curtis dalecur...@chromium.org wrote: Yes, both WebAudio and MSE can do that, though I'd probably lean towards WebAudio for anything game related. Using WebAudio just create a buffer source and set the loop attribute: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AudioBufferSourceNode.loop The way you could do it with MediaSource would be to double buffer the track such that you're creating an infinite stream. I.e. append a new copy of the track as time reaches the end of the previously appended track. To avoid unnecessary memory usage you would remove stale copies of the data once played. - dale On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: Can this be used for gapless looping of the same track? This is a common request for game developers looking to seamlessly loop a music or ambience track: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=353072 Ashley On 27 October 2014 20:09, Dale Curtis dalecur...@chromium.org wrote: Hi, Chrome developer here, gapless playback should work with both WebAudio and Media Source Extensions (MSE). I've fixed bugs in both implementations, so if you have some test cases in Chrome that fail, I'd love to see them. As luck has it, I've recently put an article together on how to use MSE for gapless playback: http://dalecurtis.github.io/llama-demo/index.html We'll be posting it to HTML5Rocks in the near future. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. You also note that setTimeout() is not precise enough for your usage; you should take a look at the WebAudio scheduler or using WebWorkers: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/audio/scheduling/ https://github.com/chrisguttandin/worker-timers If you only need your project to work in the foreground using requestAnimationFrame is also an option. I'd first try to schedule as much as you can in advance though. - dale
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
Tobie Langel tobie.lan...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Brett Zamir wrote: The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. Why can't you just do the same as used to be done? Download the resource locally (save, using a href download), then upload it to the new site (open, using input type=file)? Because that's a terrible user experience? If that is indeed the case, the terrible user experience is likely a feature of your user agent. Many mobile UAs currently offer several alternatives to the standard file-picker, no change in HTML needed. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Re: [whatwg] Gapless playback problems with web audio standards
Unfortunately, making loop in the bare audio tag sample accurate in Chrome is non-trivial for a variety of reasons, so it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. The MSE based approach should work great in the meantime; I've used the approach described above for seamless audio+video looping. - dale On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: Web Audio is unsuitable for music tracks due to needing to download and fully decompress in to memory the entire track before starting playback. It would be nice if this could just work with the HTML5 audio loop tag. Ashley On 28 October 2014 18:06, Dale Curtis dalecur...@chromium.org wrote: Yes, both WebAudio and MSE can do that, though I'd probably lean towards WebAudio for anything game related. Using WebAudio just create a buffer source and set the loop attribute: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AudioBufferSourceNode.loop The way you could do it with MediaSource would be to double buffer the track such that you're creating an infinite stream. I.e. append a new copy of the track as time reaches the end of the previously appended track. To avoid unnecessary memory usage you would remove stale copies of the data once played. - dale On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Ashley Gullen ash...@scirra.com wrote: Can this be used for gapless looping of the same track? This is a common request for game developers looking to seamlessly loop a music or ambience track: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=353072 Ashley On 27 October 2014 20:09, Dale Curtis dalecur...@chromium.org wrote: Hi, Chrome developer here, gapless playback should work with both WebAudio and Media Source Extensions (MSE). I've fixed bugs in both implementations, so if you have some test cases in Chrome that fail, I'd love to see them. As luck has it, I've recently put an article together on how to use MSE for gapless playback: http://dalecurtis.github.io/llama-demo/index.html We'll be posting it to HTML5Rocks in the near future. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. You also note that setTimeout() is not precise enough for your usage; you should take a look at the WebAudio scheduler or using WebWorkers: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/audio/scheduling/ https://github.com/chrisguttandin/worker-timers If you only need your project to work in the foreground using requestAnimationFrame is also an option. I'd first try to schedule as much as you can in advance though. - dale
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
A smarter file-picker is not going to address the significant UX and performance issues with save-open for moving files between applications. Many common workflows involve having files open in multiple editors at once, saving in one app, reloading in others. Some applications have built in affordances for this, like text editors and IDEs that automatically reload when the content has changed on disk. One real-world example: Unity's project management lets you pull various resources into your game, then live-edit the resources in Maya, Photoshop, etc with the IDE automatically pulling in the changes and running builds to update the content. If this kind of interchange and interaction requires literally doing save-confirm save-open-pick saved file from wherever it went *every time* nobody will use these applications. The applications that get used will be ones that figure out a clever set of workarounds like the postmessage/blessed domain one mentioned in the original post. That sort of approach is something that will easily lead to a walled garden library that 'solves the problem' and becomes widely adopted, when HTML5 itself could probably tackle the issue without a bunch of new scaffolding or significant new APIs. Mind you, I'm not saying this is an easy problem to solve - just that it's worth solving and that save-open is not a solution. One idea: 'transferable' support for indexedDB such that a blessed domain can postMessage an indexedDB database over to another domain, to allow shared access to storage for a specific database. This doesn't address all the problems in the original post, but simplifies the task of sharing content between applications. This would probably also pay dividends for web workers. (Actually, is this already specced? I only know that worker access to indexedDB wasn't available in Gecko or Blink the last time I checked and didn't seem to be a planned addition.) Another option: Some simple protocol for creating 'shared' databases using a special token in the name you pass to indexedDB.open? I can see how this might be a compat problem, but it would be a pretty low-overhead way to expose basic support for this. Perhaps the unique token you pass would be created by a feature-detectable API, sort of like how createObjectURL works. That would give you a single point where you can insert approval/feedback UI and do any necessary I/O to set up sharing, while the rest of the database flow remains unchanged. Synchronization between two processes mutually touching the DB is hard but you could just punt on that like is currently done with typed arrays - neutering or equivalent. Alternately, a single database-wide lock would probably cover things - that's the approach SQLite used for a long time. -kg On 28 October 2014 12:17, Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Tobie Langel tobie.lan...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Brett Zamir wrote: The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. Why can't you just do the same as used to be done? Download the resource locally (save, using a href download), then upload it to the new site (open, using input type=file)? Because that's a terrible user experience? If that is indeed the case, the terrible user experience is likely a feature of your user agent. Many mobile UAs currently offer several alternatives to the standard file-picker, no change in HTML needed. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
On 15 February 2014 03:04, Brett Zamir bret...@yahoo.com wrote: *The opportunity and current obstacles* The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. *Workarounds* Sure, there is postMessage or CORS requests which can be used to allow one site to be the arbiter of this data. And one could conceivably create a shared data store built upon even postMessage alone, even one which can work fully offline through cache manifests and localStorage or IndexedDB (I have begun some work on this concept at https://gist.github.com/brettz9/8876920 ), but this can only work if: 1. A site or set of domains is trusted to host the shared content. 2. Instead of being built into the browser, it requires that the shared storage site be visited at least one time. *Proposal* 1. Add support for sharedStorage (similar to globalStorage but requiring approval), SharedIndexedDB, and SharedFileWriter/SharedFileSystem which, when used, would cause the browser to prompt the user to require user approval whenever storing or retrieving from such data stores (with an option to remember the choice for a particular site/domain), informing users of potential risks depending on how the data might be used, and potentially allowing them to view, on the spot, the specific data that was being stored. Optional API methods could deter XSS by doing selective escaping, but the potential for abuse should not be used as an excuse for preventing arbitrary shared storage, since again, it is worked well on the desktop, despite risks there, and as works with postMessage despite it also having risks. 2. Add support for corresponding ReadonlyShared storage mechanisms, namespaced by the origin site of the data. A site, http://example.com might add such shared storage under example.com which http://some-other-site.example could retrieve but not alter or delete (unless perhaps a grave warning were given to users about the fact that this was not the same domain). This would have the benefit above postMessage in that if the origin site goes down, third party sites would still be able to have access to the data. 3. Encourage browsers to allow direct editing of this stored data in a human-readable manner (with files at least being ideally directly viewable from the OS desktop). I proposed something similar earlier, and received a reply about doing this through shared workers, but as I understood it, I did not like that possibility because: a. it would limit the neutrality of the storage, creating one site as an unchallengeable arbiter of the data b. it would increase complexity for developers c. it would presumably depend on the setting of CORS directives to distinguish it from same-domain shared workers. While https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/DeviceStorageAPI appears to meet a subset of these needs, it does not meet all. +1 Thank you, Brett
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
On 28 October 2014 21:32, Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com writes: On 15 February 2014 03:04, Brett Zamir bret...@yahoo.com wrote: *The opportunity and current obstacles* The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. *Workarounds* Sure, there is postMessage or CORS requests which can be used to allow one site to be the arbiter of this data. And one could conceivably create a shared data store built upon even postMessage alone, even one which can work fully offline through cache manifests and localStorage or IndexedDB (I have begun some work on this concept at https://gist.github.com/brettz9/8876920 ), but this can only work if: 1. A site or set of domains is trusted to host the shared content. 2. Instead of being built into the browser, it requires that the shared storage site be visited at least one time. *Proposal* 1. Add support for sharedStorage (similar to globalStorage but requiring approval), SharedIndexedDB, and SharedFileWriter/SharedFileSystem which, when used, would cause the browser to prompt the user to require user approval whenever storing or retrieving from such data stores (with an option to remember the choice for a particular site/domain), informing users of potential risks depending on how the data might be used, and potentially allowing them to view, on the spot, the specific data that was being stored. Optional API methods could deter XSS by doing selective escaping, but the potential for abuse should not be used as an excuse for preventing arbitrary shared storage, since again, it is worked well on the desktop, despite risks there, and as works with postMessage despite it also having risks. 2. Add support for corresponding ReadonlyShared storage mechanisms, namespaced by the origin site of the data. A site, http://example.com might add such shared storage under example.com which http://some-other-site.example could retrieve but not alter or delete (unless perhaps a grave warning were given to users about the fact that this was not the same domain). This would have the benefit above postMessage in that if the origin site goes down, third party sites would still be able to have access to the data. 3. Encourage browsers to allow direct editing of this stored data in a human-readable manner (with files at least being ideally directly viewable from the OS desktop). I proposed something similar earlier, and received a reply about doing this through shared workers, but as I understood it, I did not like that possibility because: a. it would limit the neutrality of the storage, creating one site as an unchallengeable arbiter of the data b. it would increase complexity for developers c. it would presumably depend on the setting of CORS directives to distinguish it from same-domain shared workers. While https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/DeviceStorageAPI appears to meet a subset of these needs, it does not meet all. +1 Stop doing this. Excuse me? -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com writes: On 28 October 2014 21:32, Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Melvin Carvalho melvincarva...@gmail.com writes: On 15 February 2014 03:04, Brett Zamir bret...@yahoo.com wrote: *The opportunity and current obstacles* The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software which could create and edit files shareable by other third-party software which would have the same rights to do the same. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated. Yet today, on the web, there appears to be no standard way to create content in such an agnostic manner whereby users have full, built-in, locally-controlled portability of their data. *Workarounds* Sure, there is postMessage or CORS requests which can be used to allow one site to be the arbiter of this data. And one could conceivably create a shared data store built upon even postMessage alone, even one which can work fully offline through cache manifests and localStorage or IndexedDB (I have begun some work on this concept at https://gist.github.com/brettz9/8876920 ), but this can only work if: 1. A site or set of domains is trusted to host the shared content. 2. Instead of being built into the browser, it requires that the shared storage site be visited at least one time. *Proposal* 1. Add support for sharedStorage (similar to globalStorage but requiring approval), SharedIndexedDB, and SharedFileWriter/SharedFileSystem which, when used, would cause the browser to prompt the user to require user approval whenever storing or retrieving from such data stores (with an option to remember the choice for a particular site/domain), informing users of potential risks depending on how the data might be used, and potentially allowing them to view, on the spot, the specific data that was being stored. Optional API methods could deter XSS by doing selective escaping, but the potential for abuse should not be used as an excuse for preventing arbitrary shared storage, since again, it is worked well on the desktop, despite risks there, and as works with postMessage despite it also having risks. 2. Add support for corresponding ReadonlyShared storage mechanisms, namespaced by the origin site of the data. A site, http://example.com might add such shared storage under example.com which http://some-other-site.example could retrieve but not alter or delete (unless perhaps a grave warning were given to users about the fact that this was not the same domain). This would have the benefit above postMessage in that if the origin site goes down, third party sites would still be able to have access to the data. 3. Encourage browsers to allow direct editing of this stored data in a human-readable manner (with files at least being ideally directly viewable from the OS desktop). I proposed something similar earlier, and received a reply about doing this through shared workers, but as I understood it, I did not like that possibility because: a. it would limit the neutrality of the storage, creating one site as an unchallengeable arbiter of the data b. it would increase complexity for developers c. it would presumably depend on the setting of CORS directives to distinguish it from same-domain shared workers. While https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI/DeviceStorageAPI appears to meet a subset of these needs, it does not meet all. +1 Stop doing this. Excuse me? If I am not mistaken, you full-quoted an entire Email just to add „+1“. If you would have done similar in the Google+ Ghetto or on Facebook, I would have no problem with your behaviour. However, on a mailing list, you are annoying people, probably the few hundred or thousand who are subscribed in this case. You are wasting their time – and yours, if I might add … since the WHATWG was not a democracy last time I checked. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
