2 ms·

I'm still very much a newbie but your explanation has now left me in a better position than where I was when I first commented. :) A few follow up questions:

I'm still very much a newbie but your explanation has now left me in a better position than where I was when I first commented. :) A few follow up questions: 1. They could have achieved the same using cookies too, right? How is it different from using cookies? 2. Is it better because quicker? Or is it better because local storage allows a site to store/retrieve more data from the user and thus reducing the need to get it all from the server? 3. What about CORS? How doe sthat factor in? I honestly don't expect you to answer all these questions. you seem knowledgeable about the topic, so posted these questions here. I'd be very glad if you could simply redirect me to a relevant webpage. Thank you for your time and efforts, I appreciate it very much!

nedved 13y ago
1 - There is nothing wrong with "cookies" but html5 web storage has a lot more flexibility when it comes to storing data in the browser.. It also works better with many modern mobile devices (and mobile devices are becoming more and more popular on the web today). 2 - You're correct about #2 - Caching as much data that does not change in the browser (such as images, common requests etc) will often improve the user experience -- especially when on a poor connection such as a 3G mobile phone. 3 - CORS is defined by the w3dt.net servers .. the main w3dt.net site does not allow "cross-origin" sharing to my knowledge but sub domains such as "results.w3dt.net" do allow CORS so that users may embed results into other websites. -- Read here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-origin_resource_sharing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-origin_resource_sharing Have a great day :)