Re:Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Fi...
by walterbell on Sunday June 02, 2019 @09:22AM
(#20075265)
> For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito.
Isn't that good for privacy? Localstorage can store unique IDs and other data about the client's past behavior, it's much more dangerous than cookies.
Re:Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Fi...
by jekrb on Sunday June 02, 2019 @11:34AM
(#20076080)
It would be nice if localstorage worked in a new instance in incognito. This way webapps that require it can still function without affecting non-incognito tabs. What other privacy concerns would there be I'm wondering?
Re:Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Fi...
by walterbell on Sunday June 02, 2019 @12:10PM
(#20076300)
If incognito mode discards localstorage, there is risk of silent data loss. E.g. imagine a web-based editor that saved drafts.
Websites can detect the absence of localstorage and change their behavior, e.g. notify the user that information will be lost after the session ends.
Re:Google Just Gave 2B Chrome Users a Reason to Switch to Fi...
by revvx on Sunday June 02, 2019 @11:34AM
(#20076079)
> For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito
It does allow (at least in the version I'm using), but doesn't persist the data between sessions. Which is the whole point of Icognito mode.
A couple issues with Safari I've seen since it's slower to adopt web standards:
- buggier websites from devs who don't have iPhones. Since there are some quirky inconsistencies with how webkit handles css vs other browser rendering engines it's easy not to catch those quirks if you don't have an iPhone to check them with. And once users point them out, it's a pain to fix without a physical device.
- a smaller web feature set than chrome/Firefox. For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito. I think it supports serviceworkers and webrtc now but it took years to get them.