On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:25 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com>
wrote:
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)?
There are two ends to this spectrum: one is developing a toolbox
technology that can just fit with other technologies, the other is
defining a platform that developers can author content for in a
reliable manner.
I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome, but I don't think that
we should base our decision solely on where some of us think we should
place the specification on that spectrum — if only because such
discussions tend to be based mostly on personal preference and
anecdotal evidence. I think it should stand or fall on the
requirement's merit, and on what we expect the typical usage to be (as
opposed to contrived examples). I think that having preferences is a
required feature for a widget, and I think that the typical cases
(HTML/SVG content) will support Storage anyway, so there's no harm —
and in fact extra convenience — in using it for the preferences
attribute.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
