Edit: I misread the parent comment, apologies for that! After re-reading, I still agree with them, but with some nuance. This article describes "somewhat" vol

Edit: I misread the parent comment, apologies for that! After re-reading, I still agree with them, but with some nuance. This article describes "somewhat" volatile state, and I think there are interesting use-cases for temporary sticky state that stays between visits (but doesn't need to be stored permanently). I see this being cool for search filter states and stuff. I'll leave my original comment as-is because I still thought that was worth sharing, too. -- I've put a lot of thought into easy, no DB persistence for a project of mine, and I have to agree with your assessment. I ended up persisting to the private fragment identifier (hash) portion of the URL. It makes bookmarking and copy-paste state sharing easier. Most major browsers have a bookmark sync feature these days, so state sync is free (a nice benefit!). While researching persistence options, I came across storage.sync[0]. It's like local storage, but synced across browsers. I've never used it, but the promised functionality would be very cool. I think storage sync is a really good idea. I just wish there was a "web browser state file system" of sorts for users to browse, copy, back-up, etc. In absence of that, I feel no user can be confident that local storage is working, and as a consequence I won't persist anything of consequence there. [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/storage/sync https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...