Then password management would also fall under the category of "can't be made portable" and that's fine.
It's just that I've heard "profile platform independence" tossed around as being a guiding principle and I was surprised that some people treated it as so. Avi /who wonders how it fits into http://dev.chromium.org/developers/core-principles On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Stuart Morgan <stuartmor...@chromium.org>wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Avi Drissman<a...@google.com> wrote: > > - Is "profile platform independence" a guiding principle? > > [...] > > - Is it worth rewriting today's code that doesn't conform > > It didn't seem to be when I asked about password storage a while back. > Passwords aren't even portable from machine to machine--and I would be > strongly opposed to making the password storage system platform > agnostic, since it would mean abandoning an important piece of OS > integration (including transparent password portability across > browsers) on the Mac. > > That's not to say that we couldn't aim for making most of a profile > portable, but I would be sad if we made a hard-and-fast rule that > everything must be completely portable even at the cost of platform > integration. > > -Stuart > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
