You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Posting new issue as WICG/background-fetch#165 was closed with the only comment being that it was in the wrong section
It seems to only require a secure context due to being bundled with Service Workers, but Service Workers are not required for the cache API to be used or have utility. A note on the MDN page (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/CacheStorage) cryptically suggests that permissions for the Cache API may be "more complex in the future".
There are a number of issues discussing the impact gating features to a secure context either crippling functionality, creating an undue burden (or impossible where no domain name is used) of assigned certificates, or of encouraging users to ignore the warnings when a self signed cert is used. One example is here: w3c/webappsec-secure-contexts#60
Splitting the cache API into it's own spec (#879) would remove the conceptual bundling and reflect the fact that the cache API doesn't need Service Workers.
Further, indexedDB does not require a secure context and has it's own spec (https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/) so treating Cache API similarly makes sense.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Posting new issue as WICG/background-fetch#165 was closed with the only comment being that it was in the wrong section
It seems to only require a secure context due to being bundled with Service Workers, but Service Workers are not required for the cache API to be used or have utility. A note on the MDN page (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/CacheStorage) cryptically suggests that permissions for the Cache API may be "more complex in the future".
There are a number of issues discussing the impact gating features to a secure context either crippling functionality, creating an undue burden (or impossible where no domain name is used) of assigned certificates, or of encouraging users to ignore the warnings when a self signed cert is used. One example is here: w3c/webappsec-secure-contexts#60
Splitting the cache API into it's own spec (#879) would remove the conceptual bundling and reflect the fact that the cache API doesn't need Service Workers.
Further, indexedDB does not require a secure context and has it's own spec (https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/) so treating Cache API similarly makes sense.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: