El 10/07/12 10:06, "Jonas Sicking" <[email protected]> escribió:
>On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:52 AM, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA ><[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It seems that you want to follow the 'Widget Path' with their cons and >> their pros ... Some questions along the lines ... >> >> A/ Does this proposal mean that we can get rid of AppCache for trusted / >> certified content? That would be really helpful to drop the current make >> install-gaia hacks to feed the AppCache > >Yes. A patch to do this is already in progress. Great! > >> B/ It seems that your proposal is going to follow the Widget Path or a >> similar one. Thus, Do you think it could be a good idea to rescue the >> Widget Packaging Format (.zip), signatures, etc. and change it only by >> including the OWA JSON stuff? I would not like to create yet another >> packaging format and signature for apps, thus I would recommend to rely >>on >> an existing one, standard or de-facto standard. > >All we need here is zip file with two additional pieces of data: >* A manifest. Here we want to use the OWA JSON manifest file we >already have defined. So can't reuse widgets for this. >* A signature. My perception was that the way that widgets sign >packages is much too complicated and that we can do something simpler. > >Hence I don't think there's much we can reuse from widgets. If you choose zip as packaging format that would be a good point of reuse. If we try to do signing simpler than Widgets, I would try to make it as much as compatible with standards, XML DigSig for instance. > >I do agree it would be great to reuse something existing though. But >as mentioned in my original email, I want to discuss that in separate >threads. I would urge you to start such discussions as soon as possible. Deadlines are closer and closer and timers keep ticking ... > >> C/ The app URL scheme seems to be the same as the Widget URI Scheme and >>I >> think it should be opaque to the app developer. Having said that, I >>don't >> know why we are inventing a new one ... > >I'm not a fan of the way that widgets use uuids rather than real >domains. Also, it seems confusing to use the widget scheme if we >aren't using any other aspects of widgets. Agree but in essence would be the same. But let me remark that I would not like to invent anything new if it does not have opportunities to progress as an standard > >> D/ The Widget Update spec can serve as a point of inspiration on how to >> discover and download updates. I would also recommend not to invent >> anything new. We should define something that could be standardized in >>the >> future or base it in an existing standard. > >Again, as mentioned in my original email, I'd like to keep update >protocol discussions out of this thread. Again, please start them as soon as possible ... > >/ Jonas > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
