On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:09 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> I like the idea. This would be useful for various things, especially if we
> could integrate the discovery and selection of this feature (the local proxy
> Web service) through Web Intents.
I don't understand how Web Intents would be us
I like the idea. This would be useful for various things, especially if we
could integrate the discovery and selection of this feature (the local proxy
Web service) through Web Intents.
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On May 4, 2012, at 6:48 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:12 A
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> An idea I was kicking around for this would be to simplify the three
> points above to instead have just a way to declare a JS file as being a
> local interceptor, and then have that JS file be automatically launched in
> a worker thread, and t
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Michael Nordman wrote:
>
> 1. Allow cross-origin HTTPS resources to be included in manifest files.
> This much is actually done already in chromium impl as described on the
> whatwg list.
I believe this is now done.
> 2. Allow a syntax to associate a page with an applicat
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, louis-rémi BABE wrote:
>
> ## Maybe Web devs don't use App Cache because they don't understand
> what it is... ##
>
> The possibility of using Webapps offline has a great potential but its
> adoption by developers didn't reach our expectations. We asked Web
> developers some
2011/4/7 Michael Nordman
>
>
> 2011/4/7 louis-rémi BABE
>
>> Thank you all for your valuable answers.
>>
>> There seems to be a pretty solid agreement on "ability to exclude the
>> master page form the cache".
>> Michael, you are suggesting using a different way of referring to the
>> manifest:
2011/4/7 louis-rémi BABE
> Thank you all for your valuable answers.
>
> There seems to be a pretty solid agreement on "ability to exclude the
> master page form the cache".
> Michael, you are suggesting using a different way of referring to the
> manifest:
> Why not just let it be listed in the
Oh, and I hope you've all seen AppCacheFact.info[1], a really good
documentation to get started with AppCache.
Regards,
Lr
[1] http://appcachefacts.info/
Thank you all for your valuable answers.
There seems to be a pretty solid agreement on "ability to exclude the
master page form the cache".
Michael, you are suggesting using a different way of referring to the
manifest:
Why not just let it be listed in the NETWORK section of the manifest?
It woul
On Apr/4/2011 2:20 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
(again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/compo
On 4/3/2011 11:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
(again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
> provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
> (again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component
> to use to file feature request
Hi Michael,
I am also not subscribed to public-html so I don't know if the HTMLWG
discussed splitting Offline Web apps into a separate spec. One of
reasons Storage, Server-sent Events, etc. were split out of HTML5 spec
is to permit those specs moving through the W3C's Recommendation track
ind
> How to standardize new Offline Web app features?
Something that can help with 'standardizing' a new feature is an
implementation. Maybe I can help on that one by building the list of
features mentioned earlier in this thread [1] into chrome. The first three
bullets are fairly easy to come by but
Michael Nordman wrote:
Hi Art,
Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
public-html list and honestly don't have a good understanding of which list
is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
to harmonize with other topics discusse
Hi Art,
Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
public-html list and honestly don't have a good understanding of which list
is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
to harmonize with other topics discussed on the public-webapps l
Michael, All,
On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
I have in mind several extensions to the ApplicationCache that I think
could address some of the additional desirements from the web
developement community. I'll post them here because people seem to be
more willing to have a dis
The main requirement for a "webapp" (or a website) to use App Cache,
is AJAX capability.
Without AJAX, the webapp is just like offline STATIC application
(which is boring).
So, in order to use App Cache, developers must re-design their
websites so that it is AJAX enabled (which requires too much wo
Hi again,
I have in mind several extensions to the ApplicationCache that I think could
address some of the additional desirements from the web developement
community. I'll post them here because people seem to be more willing to
have a discussion on the topic here than over in whatwg.
1. Allow cr
IndexedDB would be more suited to what you're doing Nathan, I've always seen
ApplicationCache as something to only use on the core HTML/JS/CSS and perhaps
small images, like icons (none of this would change often, and would generally
be rather small) whereas IndexedDB sounds more like what you did
A couple of other app cache observations from a hobbyist who's played around
with Google's Gears...
I built an offline web application based on Gears, with the intention to
migrate to something a bit more standardized as it became available. That
was a good two years ago now, but the existing and
> 2011/3/24 louis-rémi BABE
> ## Maybe Web devs don't use App Cache because they don't understand
> what it is... ##
>
> I think most webdevs are expecting more than what is offered. It seems like a
> half baked solution to a potentially useful requirement.
I thought I'd add half a cent here, f
It is interesting that on the day when I published the WG Note for
DataCache, we are having this conversation. Just goes to show that there is
more than just a couple of us interested in finding a solution to this
problem.
Like all things Web, incremental is better than revolutionary. However, I a
Hi, comments inline
2011/3/24 louis-rémi BABE
> ## Maybe Web devs don't use App Cache because they don't understand
> what it is... ##
>
I think most webdevs are expecting more than what is offered. It seems like
a half baked solution to a potentially useful requirement.
> ## Can you see othe
Hi Louis,
It's good to see some interest in the AppCache from the mozilla camp. My
take on one thing that "what went wrong" is that the community of browser
vendors stopped engaging on the topic, so I'm happy to see you posting here.
You pointed out two features that have been often requested.
-
ing group, I'm an intern at Mozilla Developers Engagement team and I'm
> currently
>
>
> From:
>
> louis-rémi BABE
>
> To:
>
> public-webapps@w3.org
>
> Date:
>
> 03/23/2011 08:58 AM
>
> Subject:
>
> Offline Web Applications
ublic-webapps@w3.org
Date: 03/23/2011 08:58 AM
Subject:Offline Web
Hello Webapps working group,
I'm an intern at Mozilla Developers Engagement team and I'm currently
working on promoting Offline Web Applications.
My first task is to understand what did go wrong with the App Cache mechanism...
## Maybe Web devs don't use App Cache because they don't understand
wh
28 matches
Mail list logo
