Thank you. Please let me know if there are any significant changes to the
status of this.
Noah
Chair: W3C Technical Architecture Group
On 11/30/2011 12:57 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Noah - FYI, I updated [Action-640] to include the TAG's comment [LC-2] (it
originally was only for Ashok's personal comment [Ashok]) and updated LC-2
to connect it to Action-640.
-AB
[Action-640] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/640
[LC-2]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
[Ashok]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0837.html
On 11/18/11 10:44 AM, ext Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document
> for this LC:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
Thank you.
Noah
On 11/18/2011 10:01 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Noah - the TAG's comment has been added to the comment tracking document
for this LC:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WebStorage-Comments-LC-25Oct2011#LC-2
If anyone wants to propose extensions or changes to Web Storage, please use
[Bugzilla] and please feel free to contribute to the group's [Database]
wiki e.g. to clarify the relationship between Web Storage and HTML5's
AppCache.
If you have any additional feedback, please reply by November 25, the day
the CfC to publish a Candidate Recommendation of Web Storage ends [CfC].
-Art Barstow
[Bugzilla]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=WebAppsWG
[Database] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Database
[CfC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0998.html
On 11/15/11 5:05 PM, ext Noah Mendelsohn 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/
