On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Peter Kastingpkast...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com wrote:
All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
eating up disk, really.
Yep, I agree (although that may no longer be
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com
wrote:
All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Ben Laurie b...@google.com wrote:
That seems overly simplistic to me - for example, just because I
sometimes want to let a chat app have access to my camera, doesn't
mean I want it
I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
the extension system for apps that need special permissions, increased
quotas, expanded lifetimes, etc. The extension can be almost vacuous, and in
our extension world exceptionally lightweight. It only needs to make the
I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
implementations for each platform. And in many cases the extension delivery
mechanism is under the control of an arbitrary third party (i.e. Google,
In the past, Hixie has been against the notion of installed applications.
Perhaps for web pages that is the proper approach, however I really like
(from a UI/usability/security) perspective the notion of installing
something as a mechanism for granting trust. We can argue about how good the
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Linus Upson li...@google.com wrote:
I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
the extension system for apps that need special permissions, increased
quotas, expanded lifetimes, etc. The extension can be almost vacuous, and in
Add them to the malware blacklist :)
2009/7/29 Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Linus Upson li...@google.com wrote:
I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
the extension system for apps that need special permissions,
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:31 PM, Ian Fette wrote:
Add them to the malware blacklist :)
Yeah, I think this is right. Bad acting websites should be considered
malware, and blocked for that reason.
Linus: I agree that we can (and probably should) work on the webapps
list to build some good
Everything is a cache. We are free to toss out local storage, databases,
appcaches, cookies, etc. any time we want. I think the best way is to have a
good eviction algorithm for local storage.
What eviction algorithm are we using for the main browser cache? Perhaps
some version of that that
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:32 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
BTW, I can't find the HTML5 sql storage spec anymore - google is
totally failing me. Anyone have a link?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
cheers,
mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list:
It got ripped out because Mozilla has refused to implement. An old version
is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
2009/7/29 Drew Wilson atwil...@chromium.org
I recall that the SQL Storage API allows developers to declare up front how
much quota they want. Perhaps you should ask Hixie
that version no longer contains the sql database api :) you want
http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
2009/7/29 Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:32 PM, Drew Wilson wrote:
BTW, I can't find the HTML5 sql storage spec anymore - google is totally
failing me. Anyone have a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Drew Wilson atwil...@chromium.org wrote:
I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
implementations for each platform. And in many cases the extension
BTW, this probably came off wrong. Mozilla and others had concerns about the
SQL-database versions, which I believe largely circled around the fact that
it wasn't well specified, everyone was just using sqlite, and there weren't
really multiple independent implementations, and as a result it was
On 29-Jul-09, at 2:35 PM, Ian Fette wrote:
It got ripped out because Mozilla has refused to implement. An old
version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
Well, more because people felt like it was a contentious item that was
bloating / delaying the completion of HTML5. The
I recall that the SQL Storage API allows developers to declare up front how
much quota they want. Perhaps you should ask Hixie if we want to make this
an option for local storage as well?
BTW, I can't find the HTML5 sql storage spec anymore - google is totally
failing me. Anyone have a link?
-atw
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Drew Wilsonatwil...@chromium.org wrote:
I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
implementations for each platform.
Just to clarify, you really mean
I agree on the need for a better UI to manage cached resources and
selectively clear parts of the cache. The current web model of per-origin
grouping isn't very satisfying because some apps span multiple origins and
some origins host multiple apps. Given the extensive discussions around this
for
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm starting to think ahead to how quotas will work with LocalStorage (and
I assume database and maybe even AppCache). To begin with, I'll probably
just set a fixed quota (5mb is pretty standard), but some apps will
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm starting to think ahead to how quotas will work with LocalStorage (and
I assume database and maybe even AppCache). To begin with, I'll
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
One approach that seems obvious to a lot of people I've talked to is asking
the user (maybe via an info bar?) whenever an origin hits its limit
Putting aside the technical questions here, I'm a little skeptical from a UI
On 28-Jul-09, at 11:55 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
Putting aside the technical questions here, I'm a little skeptical
from a UI perspective. How do I know what's OK and what's not? If
a bad app wants to use a lot of disk, can it convince me to let it
if I'm a novice user? In other
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.com wrote:
All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
eating up disk, really.
Yep, I agree (although that may no longer be true in a few years as web apps
grow in power and complexity).
In the world
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Mike Beltzner beltz...@mozilla.comwrote:
All we're doing at this point is preventing malicious applications from
eating up disk, really.
Yep, I agree (although that may no longer be
25 matches
Mail list logo
