On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected]> wrote: >> But I believe that that would be a pretty crappy private browsing >> feature which I don't think anyone here would argue for. >> >> Private browsing is mainly about giving you a new, throw-away, >> identity. The throw-away part is why we don't allow storing data. The >> reason we have a separate cookie jar is in order to implement the >> "new" part. > > That was actually an unintended use case which was enabled as a side-effect > of the cookie jar separation. We never really designed PB for this.
Whatever the reason we did this originally was, I believe that we would have had a mostly useless private-browsing feature if we had not created a new blank cookie-jar for private browsing. I really do believe that private browsing must create a "new, throw-away" profile. Anything else will be mostly useless to users. They don't care if google didn't technically create any new cookies, if "wedding ring" shows up in the user's search history due to a search done in private browsing, they will be very disappointed. / Jonas _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
