As I've said, you keep confining the problem and the solution over HTTP and servers while I see this approach, maybe slightly revisited, a good **generic bundling** solution even without a server and easily adoptable now plus this will not mean HTTP 2 won't be handy to help with this case too.
The proposal could be revisited to tell browsers to look for package.zip/index.html automagically once opened so we'll have a bundle that can work over HTTP and over Bluetooth exchange too. So, my counter question would be: do we have a standard generic bundle option that works same way every other programming language has ? (war files, python distributable with self extracting archive and execution, .NET apps, etc etc etc) If such thing exists plus HTTP2 will solve all other problems then I agree it's not a good idea to implement this now. If such thing does not exist I would like to keep thinking the combination JS + HTML + CSS can offer a lot even without a webserver behind or any protocol ... there is a database that does not need a connection and all tools needed to offer great applications. You guys know this better than me with FirefoxOS. My 2 cents On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 11/10/2013 15:51, Russell Leggett a écrit : > > > Not sure if this changes anything, carry on. >> >> Server push is happening as part of HTTP 2.0. Do you have a use case in >> which it's insufficient? >> >> > Not sure if this was directed at me or Jorge > > To anyone really, trying to understand if people are doing things that > aren't solved by HTTP 2.0 server push. > > David > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
