13020 2011-06-22 22:28:49 +0000 No user agent will implement the storage mutex so this passage does not reflect reality 2011-08-04 21:41:54 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG Web Storage (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#sandboxCookies P2 normal --- 1 contributor ian art.barstow ayg ian me mike Ms2ger public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-webapps roc public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 50141 0 contributor 2011-06-22 22:28:49 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/dom.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#sandboxCookies Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#sandboxCookies Comment: No user agent will implement the storage mutex so this passage does not reflect reality Posted from: 2620:0:1000:fd28:129a:ddff:feb5:9795 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_7) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.742.100 Safari/534.30 50271 1 ian 2011-06-24 18:55:55 +0000 No UA? Or no current UA? In particular, last I heard Mozilla was planning on implementing it because they considered the perf implications to be less bad than letting sites corrupt themselves. 50298 2 roc 2011-06-24 22:31:48 +0000 We're going to make a decision about this fairly soon. 50513 3 ian 2011-06-30 18:35:07 +0000 (I'm leaning towards changing the spec to basically make the storage mutex optional to implement, with a big scary warning about how not implementing it will lead to sites corrupting themselves.) 54194 4 contributor 2011-08-04 21:41:54 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6368. Check-in comment: Allow UAs to opt out of the storage mutex and corrupt data instead of being slow. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6367&to=6368