Open web leads, was there any further discussion of this? -Nick On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Alex <faab...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > > That seems like a good plan. Has anyone ever tried formalizing it and > > floating it around to other vendors? > > I figured I should jump into the thread since I can give some > perspective on the UI from another vendor. I'm a principal designer > on Firefox, and this is a feature that I'm really passionate about. > > > > 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. > > I completely agree with the user being able to give the Web app > various privileges in "one shot," as opposed to having to provide > permissions individually, like access to a certain amount of offline > storage, local file type registration, ability to produce > notifications, etc (although we will likely allow users to revoke > permissions to Web apps individually). > > I'm concerned that the notion of "installing a Web app" is going to be > difficult for a lot of people to wrap their head around. This > somewhat implies that the Web app is going to served locally (like how > Zimbra Desktop currently deploys with Mozilla's Prism). So in terms > of the Firefox UI, we haven't decided on the best way to describe the > action of giving a Web app additional desktop-like privileges. While > we will likely have an explicit menu item, we are also considering > granting these privileges implicitly when the user takes an action > like dragging a tab into their OS X Dock, or Windows quick launch > bar. We also may grant the Web app certain privileges in Firefox 4 > when it is dragged to the left of the "home tab," and now exists in a > persistent state that we are referring to as an "app tab." > > I've also been considering the value of adding an additional item to > the Windows Start Menu and OS X Applications folder called "Add Web > Application," which would generate appropriate shortcuts, and grant > the Web app additional privileges. I think conceptually this works > well since the interface is placed alongside other desktop apps, > however this is a bit more aggressive than Firefox usually behaves. > > While UA defined semantics and behaviors are of course outside of the > standardization process of the API, I think the Web as a whole would > benefit if we coordinated to deploy a reasonably similar interface for > this functionality. > > -Alex Faaborg > > > On Oct 2, 4:23 pm, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote: > > That seems like a good plan. Has anyone ever tried formalizing it and > > floating it around to other vendors? > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <b...@chromium.org > >wrote: > > > > > 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 <jor...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> > > > 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/02. > .. > > > > 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: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
