On 01/07/13 22:38, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Monday, 24 June 2013 at 19:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Jun 18, 2013 5:51 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <mcace...@mozilla.com >> (mailto:mcace...@mozilla.com)> wrote: >>> I think it sounds ok for the Moz side (as we can control how long we >>> support a format version for, etc.) - but adding a manifest versioning >>> scheme for the Web platform (W3C-side) won't fly because it would be >>> difficult to maintain across user agents. >> >> My thinking was to use some sort of versioned manifest for now, as long as >> we only use it in prefixed mozApps.install. >> Once we switch to an unprefixed function, we also need to use a standardized >> manifest and forever maintain compatibility with that manifest format. > > Agree. But can we treat them as separate things till we actually decide to > formally support the W3C format? That frees us to experiment, innovate, and > make (hopefully few) mistakes that we can correct with versioning. It gives > us a good way to feed back to the Web without using the Web as a place of > experimentation while also enabling new features. > > If we get agreement as a group on this, I think it would help a lot. It > doesn't mean the two formats will necessarily deviate a lot - but > conceptually, it does free us a little bit. > > WDYT?
I am in favour of that. -- Mounir _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list dev-webapps@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
