On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> A commonly added feature in browsers these days is "private browsing
> mode" where the intention is that the user's browsing session leaves no
> footprint on their machine.
Different "private browsing modes" have different philosophies and
purposes, b
2009/4/9 Darin Fisher :
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>>
>> 2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
>>>
>>> I do agree that there's still need for storing data while in private
>>> browsing mode. So I do think it makes a lot of
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
> 2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
>
>>
>> I do agree that there's still need for storing data while in private
>> browsing mode. So I do think it makes a lot of sense for
>> .sessionStorage t
Aryeh Gregor wrote on 4/8/2009 12:23 PM:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bil Corry wrote:
>> Is there really a use case for wanting to show up at a site as yourself, but
>> not have any footprint of the visit saved locally?
>
> Yes. The commonly-cited use-case is buying a present for your sp
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bil Corry wrote:
> Is there really a use case for wanting to show up at a site as yourself, but
> not have any footprint of the visit saved locally?
Yes. The commonly-cited use-case is buying a present for your spouse:
you would like it to be a surprise, and ther
Brady Eidson wrote on 4/7/2009 7:24 PM:
> A commonly added feature in browsers these days is "private browsing
> mode" where the intention is that the user's browsing session leaves no
> footprint on their machine.
I must admit, I haven't ever used "private browsing" but my expectation of such
a
Tab expressed my thoughts on this issue much better than I ever could. I did
want to follow up with a couple of notes.
I think the #1 goal for incognito mode has to be "maximum compatibility" -
let sites continue to work, which kills options #1 & 2.
A secondary goal for incognito mode would be "do
2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking :
> I do agree that the difference is subtle. But I do think there is a
> general perception that cookies are more volatile than localStorage.
> In fact, I think localStorage was invented partially because of this.
In what way is localStorage less volatile? Practically spea
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>> I think that doing option 3, and perhaps providing a way for the app to
>> know that we're in this mode so it can do whatever is appropriate (saving to
>> the cloud more frequently, jus
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> Both would lead to bizarre behavior where data that the application
>> thought was saved really wasn't.
>>
>> This matches up with how most private browsing sessions handle cookies,
>> right?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM, timeless wrote:
> 2009/4/8 Jeremy Orlow :
> > If a user is in private browsing mode typing up a message, they should
> > definitely not expect it to be there when they leave such a mode. If
> they
> > do expect it to be there, then they really wanted multiple prof
2009/4/8 Jeremy Orlow :
> If a user is in private browsing mode typing up a message, they should
> definitely not expect it to be there when they leave such a mode. If they
> do expect it to be there, then they really wanted multiple profiles.
> I know it's bad to make presumptions, but I just can
2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
>>> I certainly can't think of how 3 could ever cause a problem. It
>>> should be the same as the user just logging in from a computer they
>>> haven't used before, shouldn't it?
>>
>> I strongly share Jonas' concern that we'd tell web applications that we're
>> sto
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> A commonly added feature in browsers these days is "private browsing mode"
> where the intention is that the user's browsing session leaves no footprint
> on their machine. Cookies, cache files, history, and other data that the
> browser would
2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
> 2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> > 2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
> >>
> >> 2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> >> > In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that
> is
> >> > in
> >> > memory (plus or minus... the cache will never get written out to disk,
>
2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> 2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
>>
>> 2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
>> > In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that is
>> > in
>> > memory (plus or minus... the cache will never get written out to disk,
>> > although of course the memory pages c
2009/4/7 Michael Nordman
> I'm not sure this has to be addressed in the standard. This seems like
> something browser developers can address without grand unification.
They can, but then it shifts burden onto web developers to test more or
users to deal with broken websites.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but my argument is more that Incognito / Private / whatever is like
>> starting from a boot cdrom with a filesystem that's in memory.
>
> This is actually not necessarily a fa
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
> Both would lead to bizarre behavior where data that the application
>> thought was saved really wasn't.
>>
>> This matches up with how most private browsing sessions handle cookies,
>> rig
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> Caches are always assumed to be temporary and recoverable, and cookies have
> severe size and lifetime limitations placed on them (ie - the User Agent can
> never be excepted to keep cookies around for any predictable lifetime, per
> the cookie
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Both would lead to bizarre behavior where data that the application
thought was saved really wasn't.
This matches up with how most private browsing sessions handle
cookies, right? The data persists until the session is up (because
some of
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
Yeah, but my argument is more that Incognito / Private / whatever is
like starting from a boot cdrom with a filesystem that's in memory.
This is actually not necessarily a fact, as it has become clear that
the different private browsi
I haven't decided for sure yet, but I was leaning towards either option #2
or option #3 for Chrome. Option 5 seems like it'll be very confusing to
apps. It's possible it'll even have undesired consequences like websites
popping up alerts or telling the user "you need to increase your quota" and
n
Yeah, but my argument is more that Incognito / Private / whatever is like
starting from a boot cdrom with a filesystem that's in memory. The OS isn't
pretending, nobody's lying to the app, that's just the way it is.
I think Michael summarized it well -
Copying it over and making it read-only viola
A user can, at any time, delete application resources from their file
system while the application is in use, or before the application's
next launch. They will suffer the consequences of their own action.
The operating system probably shouldn't chose to do so on its own, the
same way the OS
And as of right now, afaict, a user / user agent can prune a database and
not be in violation of the database spec :)
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> I strongly share Jonas' concern that we'd tell web appl
I think a user agent has to harmonize across all manner of shared
resources being introduced to ensure a reasonable behavior is
provided.
* localstorage (and the breadth of the associated events)
* databases
* appcaches
* named shared workers
Starting with nothing, keeping it all walled-off from t
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I strongly share Jonas' concern that we'd tell web applications that
we're storing there data when we already know we're going to dump it
later. For 3 and 4 both, we're basically lying to the application
and therefore the user. Im
FWIW, I think it would be helpful to expose via some manner that the user is
in an incognito/private/whatever mode, especially to plugins. (Right now
none of us can really control what plugins are doing). If we exposed that
fact, a page could check it and decide what it wants to do. To me, that
fee
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
I do agree that there's still need for storing data while in private
browsing mode. So I do think it makes a lot of sense for
.sessionStorage to keep working.
But I do have concerned about essentially telling a we
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>
>>
>> How are cookies handled right now? Surely the issues should be pretty
>> much the same?
>>
>
> They are unspecified. From this thread I have learned that Chrome and
> Firefox start wi
On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
How are cookies handled right now? Surely the issues should be pretty
much the same?
They are unspecified. From this thread I have learned that Chrome and
Firefox start with no cookies. Safari starts with a snapshot of
cookies at the poin
2009/4/7 Jonas Sicking
> 2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> > In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that is
> in
> > memory (plus or minus... the cache will never get written out to disk,
> > although of course the memory pages could get swapped out and hit the
> disk
> >
2009/4/7 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) :
> In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that is in
> memory (plus or minus... the cache will never get written out to disk,
> although of course the memory pages could get swapped out and hit the disk
> that way...). The implication is that,
Yes. An incognito session starts with a blank profile, so no cookies, no
cache, ...
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> That's interesting. I'm not exactly clear what an "incognito" session
> starts out with. Does it start without any cookies, for example?
> ~Brady
>
> On Apr
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> A commonly added feature in browsers these days is "private browsing mode"
> where the intention is that the user's browsing session leaves no footprint
> on their machine. Cookies, cache files, history, and other data that the
> browser would
That's interesting. I'm not exactly clear what an "incognito" session
starts out with. Does it start without any cookies, for example?
~Brady
On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that
is in memory (plus or
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> > 1 - Disable LocalStorage completely when private browsing is on. Remove
> it
> > from the DOM completely.
> > 2 - Disable LocalStorage mostly when private browsing is on. It exists
>
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> 1 - Disable LocalStorage completely when private browsing is on. Remove it
> from the DOM completely.
> 2 - Disable LocalStorage mostly when private browsing is on. It exists at
> window.localStorage, but is empty and has a 0-quota.
> 3 - Sli
In Chrome/Chromium, "incognito" mode is basically a new profile that is in
memory (plus or minus... the cache will never get written out to disk,
although of course the memory pages could get swapped out and hit the disk
that way...). The implication is that, for many of these features, things
coul
A commonly added feature in browsers these days is "private browsing
mode" where the intention is that the user's browsing session leaves
no footprint on their machine. Cookies, cache files, history, and
other data that the browser would normally store to disk are not
updated during these
41 matches
Mail list logo
