At the limit they are the same (origin-wide eviction under pressure). What's different is that we aren't trying to apply more pressure, so incidence of eviction is *wildly* different. In all cases, if users want to keep it, we need to get them to add to install.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @briankardell and
I think there is a big difference between evicting under storage pressure (legit resource constraints) and deterministic wiping after arbitrary time periods.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @wanderview @slightlylate and
Specifically: Why and how it chooses to apply time to the equation in browsers (not running as pwa) is the only difference tho, right? Just confirming that I understand correctly before I ask one more question..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adactio @briankardell and
Jeremy, I see what you're saying, but there's an important mis-communication in your blog post that
@briankardell is clearing up: https://adactio.com/journal/16619 You say "Caches, Local Storage, Indexed DB—all of those are subject to eventually getting cleaned up." ...but *atomically*2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @adactio and
That is, browsers are uniform (thankfully) in treating SW registrations like all other origin-controlled storage types and deciding not to do partial eviction. That is, you can't "wake up" as a SW and find your Caches are still there but not your IDB.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @adactio and
So joint eviction is good policy for app coherence. SW registrations aren't special in this way. That's a good thing. The correct focus here is on the *outlandish* reduction in durability for pages in a tab.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @adactio and
And for what? Where's the model that describes the improvements gained vs. the tradeoffs? They aren't in the post because Apple (among others) keep doing ungrounded work, e.g.: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07421 This is why we keep focusing on meaningful details: https://w3cping.github.io/privacy-threat-model/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @adactio and
So a good response to this change is to focus on what it gains in practice. Does it *actually* improve privacy? By how much? What does the model say about entropy removed? And how far away is a browser that implements this change from meaningful privacy?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @adactio and
These questions would make it clearer how far away folks are in reality from meaningful privacy preservation, e.g. via IP addresses, screen resolution, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Getting to great privacy is going to be a long road for the web involving many hard tradeoffs, as it was for security, and it similarly won't happen w/ unrigorous approaches.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @adactio and
Maybe we have to compare it to ten years ago, when Apple single-handedly ended Flash's career.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.