Chromium devs put forward a unified quota API recently. localStorage provides 5 megs of UTF16 storage; or about 2 megs of storage for binary files saved as base64 strings. It's terrible for that use.
appCache had some Apis in existing proposals for programatically adding items. I don't know if vendors have been interested in implementing them. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/nsIDOMOfflineResourceList I've certainly wanted a simple key-val blob store. We still don't have one. Even a means to persist Blob Uris would be an improvement. On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <n...@arcanedomain.com> wrote: > This is a comment from the W3C Technical Architecture Group on the last call > working draft: "Web Storage" [1]. > > The HTML5 Application Cache (AppCache) [2] and Local Storage [1] both provide > client-side storage that can be used by Web Applications. Although the > interfaces are different (AppCache has an HTML interface while Local Storage > has a JavaScript API), and they do seem to have been designed with different > use cases in mind, they provide somewhat related facilities: both cause > persistent storage for an application to be created, accessed and managed > locally at the client. If, for example, the keys in Local Storage were > interpreted as URIs then Local Storage could be used to store manifest files > and Web Applications could be written to look transparently for manifest > files in either the AppCache or in Local Storage. One might also envision > common facilities for querying the size of or releasing all of the local > storage for a given application. > > At the Offline Web Applications Workshop on Nov 5, 2011 [3] there was a > request for a JavaScript API for AppCache and talk about coordinating > AppCache and Local Storage. > > The TAG believes it is important to consider more carefully the potential > advantages of providing a single facility to cover the use cases, of perhaps > modularizing the architecture so that some parts are shared, or if separate > facilities are indeed the best design, providing common data access and > manipulation APIs. If further careful analysis suggests that no such > integration is practical, then, at a minimum, each specification should > discuss how it is positioned with respect to the other. > > Noah Mendelsohn > For the: W3C Technical Architecture Group > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-webstorage-20111025/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/offline.html#appcache > [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/web-apps-ws/ >
