On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't
believe it really fits into the Web Storage spec (if anything, I
think we
should split Web Storage into two further specs, not add a third
wholly
independent feature to it). However, I would definitely support an
FPWD
publication of Nikunj's proposal, as I have for other proposals.
That is encouraging. I will be glad to edit an FPWD that includes B-
tree, interception, and programmable cache, if the WG so prefers.
It seems to me that Berkley DB style database storage, and request
interception / programmable cache are orthogonal ideas and should
arguably be separate drafts. I would assume request interception and
programmable cache are usable regardless of what client-side storage
APIs are available, much as HTML5 Application Cache is independent of
these APIs. If anything, it seems more closely related to AppCache
than to any proposed storage solution.
Regards,
Maciej
