On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Adrian Bateman wrote: > > My preference would be to see this functionality proposed as an > evolution of AppCache. While I can't commit that we would implement it > any time soon, it would be included in our considerations and at the > very least if we implement AppCache we would try to ensure any > architecture we select wouldn't preclude these extensions in the future. > With work on the HTML5 spec trying to get it locked down towards a Last > Call, adding new features to that document is clearly less desirable and > I understand Ian's reluctance to incorporate extensions there.
My preference in general would be for us to wait until we have stable, well-tested implementations before adding more features to appcache, but I certainly think that on the long term, appcache should be extended to support more than it does now. As it stands, the model is quite extensible, so I think it would be relatively easy for us to move in that direction in the future. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
