On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 2009, at 06:37 , Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Scott Wilson >> <scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Apr 2009, at 15:33, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>>> You will have this problem regardless of how you solve this issue if you >>>> do not also require a specific scripting language, markup language, etc. >>> >>> >>> It seems to be rather strongly _implied_ that widgets will use HTML, >>> ECMAScript and CSS... >> >> Could we also similarly imply that the .localStorage API also be >> implemented? This is especially easy now that localStorage is becoming >> its own spec [1]. > > Well, my understanding was that we had to have Web Storage for API & Events > anyway since that's what implements preferences (and we need to define how > it's used so that we can get read-only keys). Even if that's all there is, > it'd be a little bit silly for a UA to support Web Storage for the > preferences but not in other contexts.
True. However, Anne seems to be implying that we should not replicate functionality available in other context. For example, would a (hypothetical) Flash-only Widget UA be expected to implement Storage? Or would we mandate that such user agents implement their own solution or use whatever means are currently available on the platform (whatever that might be for Flash)? Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
