Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Storage (Second Edition)

2016-01-07 Thread L. David Baron
On Thursday 2016-01-07 08:52 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:05 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > > This specification is derived from an upstream WHATWG specification. > > And therefore hasn't removed the storage mutex concept it seems. Not > sure if

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Storage (Second Edition)

2016-01-07 Thread Andrew Overholt
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:24 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > > Could you give a brief explanation of what the storage mutex is, and > > why it was/should be removed? > > It prevents races for storage and

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Storage (Second Edition)

2016-01-06 Thread L. David Baron
A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before they proceed to the final stage of being W3C Recomendation: Web Storage (Second Edition) http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/ deadline: January 8, 2016 (Friday!) This specification is

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Storage (Second Edition)

2016-01-06 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:05 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > This specification is derived from an upstream WHATWG specification. And therefore hasn't removed the storage mutex concept it seems. Not sure if that's careworthy since we don't implement from TR/ anyway, but I thought

W3C Proposed Recommendation: Web Storage

2013-04-22 Thread L. David Baron
The Web Apps Working Group at W3C has published a Proposed Recommendation, Web Storage (the stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation): http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-webstorage-20130409/ There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla is one) open until Tuesday, May 7.