This relates somewhat to how we'd like people to "install" web applications.
For that we figured a site would publish a manifest in some format (there was some talk about something like the extensions manifest) that specifies all kinds of appy things a site can do, like large icons, protocol schemes and mime types it can handle and the URLs for each, etc etc. The UA would expose some way to activate all of this functionality for a site in "one shot"... e.g. if the site published the data via some kind of <link> tag then a menu item in the browser might activate that the user could use to activate it. -Ben On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Is this API even part of any standard? Maybe we should bring this up on >>> WhatWG? >> >> The thread title is a clue that these are specced in HTML5 :) > > Not really. People abuse the term HTML5. Good example: WebSockets, > WebDatabase, LocalStorage, Workers, and many of the other APIs we associate > with HTML5 are not in that spec. > Anyhow, apparently this was discussed very recently and I somehow missed the > discussion: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/023084.html > I'll try to take a look at the thread some time soon. Ben and/or other UI > guys, maybe you should too. Now is the time to make noise if we think this > is a bad API. > J --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
