On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com> > wrote: > > On Nov/29/2010 9:59 AM, ext Adrian Bateman wrote: > >> On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:01 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > >>> For over a year now, the WebStorage spec has stipulated that > >>> Local/SessionStorage store and retrieve objects per the structured > clone > >>> algorithm rather than strings. And yet there isn't a single > >>> implementation > >>> who's implemented this. I've talked to people in the know from several > >>> of > >>> the other major browsers and, although no one is super against > >>> implementing > >>> it (including us), no one has it on any of their (even internal) > >>> roadmaps. It's just not a high enough priority for anyone at the > moment. > >>> I feel pretty strongly that we should _at least_ put in some > >>> non-normative > >>> note that no browser vendor is currently planning on implementing this > >>> feature. Or, better yet, just remove it from the spec until support > >>> starts > >>> emerging. > >> > >> I agree. We have no plans to support this in the near future either. At > >> the > >> very least, I think this should be noted as a "feature at risk" in the > >> Call > >> for Implementations [1]. > > > > I don't have a strong preference for removing this feature or marking it > as > > a Feature At Risk when the Candidate is published. > > > > It would be good to get feedback from other implementers (Maciej?, > Jonas?, > > Anne?). If no one plans to implement it, perhaps it should just be > removed. > > I won't be the person implementing it, but fwiw I highly value having > structured clones actually work. Any time I talk about localStorage > or similar, I get people asking about storing non-string data, and not > wanting to have to futz around with rolling their own serialization. > The spec should reflect reality and not be a collection of cool ideas that may or may not ever be implemented. I'm not arguing the merits of the feature, I'm arguing that until at least a single vendor starts implementing this, it's confusing for developers to see such text in the spec--especially so when said text has been there for over a year. J