I was curious of the compatibility between Mozilla's App Manifest and Google's Chrome Store Manifest. Found this handy comparison table which I thought others might find useful:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Apps/ManfiestFormatComparison On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Michael Brooks <[email protected]> wrote: > @Fil thanks for pointing out the Mozilla's App Manfiest! > > @Ken I think prudent that Apache Cordova listen to BlackBerry's experience > with the widget spec. We're both using it in similar ways and Apache > Cordova will likely hit the same areas for customization. Ken, can you > elaborate on how BB10 will be deviating even further? Is there a link out > there? > > Regardless of what we choose, we don't want to invent our own app manifest > "standard" and so it's worth reviewing the two that are out there. Below > are the spec links. > > W3C Configuration Document (config.xml): > http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#configuration-document > > BlackBerry WebWorks config.xml: > https://developer.blackberry.com/html5/documentation/ww_developing/working_with_config_xml_file_1866970_11.html > > Mozilla App Manifest: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Apps/Manifest > > Michael > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Ken Wallis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Laurent and I were just chatting about this. Certainly feel that we >> should have a common shared format for application metadata. Default >> option would be to look at the W3C widget spec which we all are or already >> have done in RIM's case. ;) >> >> That said, you know that we have gone past the spec already, and with BB10 >> we will have to go even farther down the custom namespace route. We (RIM) >> may need to actively diverge on some concepts that might have Widget >> equivalents but just don't map properly (Not sure yet, but starting to get >> a feeling...) I would suspect that Cordova will need custom elements as >> well. >> >> Do we ask the question then, is this still the right choice, use widget >> spec as a basis and expand where needed? Use it as inspiration, but not be >> beholden to it? Something completely custom, or aligned with other >> initiatives like Mozilla? >> >> Lots of questions... ;) >> -- >> >> Ken Wallis >> >> Product Manager – BlackBerry WebWorks >> >> Research In Motion >> >> (905) 629-4746 x14369 >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Filip Maj [[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:02 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Cordova and config.xml >> >> Just want to point out too that mozilla has/is working on their equivalent >> of config.xml >> >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Apps/Manifest >> >> >> JSON! :r >> >> On 5/29/12 10:57 AM, "Shazron" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >I concur - we had this discussion sometime ago but with respect to the >> >whitelist, and eventually decided to support access tags in config.xml to >> >consolidate all the platforms. We didn't have a plan then on when to >> >include this feature. Not seeing it in the Roadmap though pre-2.0 or even >> >for 2.0: http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/RoadmapProjects >> > >> >On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Michael Brooks >> ><[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> From my understanding, yes. >> >> >> >> PhoneGap Build currently uses it (not as extensively as BB) to describe >> >>the >> >> app's metadata and configuration (access, permissions, etc). >> >> >> >> My understanding is that as we build out the CLI for Apache Cordova, >> >>then >> >> config.xml support will be added. >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Gord Tanner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hey, >> >> > >> >> > I am wondering if cordova is going to continue aligning to the W3C >> >> > config.xml? >> >> > >> >> > Unless I am mistaken it looks like BlackBerry and PlayBook are the >> >>only >> >> > platforms that are currently using it. Is there plans to use >> >>config.xml >> >> > more cross platform? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential >> information, privileged material (including material protected by the >> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public >> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended >> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, >> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from >> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this >> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. >>
