On 5/13/12 2:17 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
For (1) we can expect a text change, right?
Yes, I will make them as soon as I able to.
For (2), If the app manifest if obtained over non-secure HTTP, it is subject to
modification. If the app is delivered over non-secure HTTP, even more can be
On Monday, 14 May 2012 at 17:44, Anant Narayanan wrote:
We've previously discussed enforcing serving manifests over HTTPS, but
it may not be appropriate to put this into the spec itself. Different
user agents may choose to do different things, ranging from disallowing
installs over HTTP
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your comments, more inline.
On 5/13/12 12:06 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 12 May 2012, at 19:02, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Why not simply reuse the widgets spec [2]?
A. Aside from naming (we're talking about apps, the word widget seems to
imply an artificial limitation),
On 5/14/12 10:47 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
I don't think we can justify the choice of one app per origin just
because it's how browsers work nowadays regarding security and
permissions. This is an implementation detail and we shouldn't write
specs based on implementation details. And that might
On 14 May 2012, at 18:12, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your comments, more inline.
On 5/13/12 12:06 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 12 May 2012, at 19:02, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Why not simply reuse the widgets spec [2]?
A. Aside from naming (we're talking about apps,
Hi Anant,
On 14/05/2012 18:12, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your comments, more inline.
On 5/13/12 12:06 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 12 May 2012, at 19:02, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Why not simply reuse the widgets spec [2]?
A. Aside from naming (we're talking about apps, the
...@marcosc.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Anant Narayanan; Ian Hickson
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: App Manifest API Proposal
On Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 21:14, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Apps are just web pages, why bother
Hi Anant,
Thanks for the proposal. It's good to see this moving forward, following the
workshop we had last year after TPAC.
Some initial comments:
1) Re version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The
User-Agent does not interpret this value in any way and is opaque to
On 5/12/2012 2:57 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 21:14, Ian Hickson wrote:
The installation security model of asking the user up-front to grant
trust just doesn't work because users don't understand the question, and
the installation security model of curating apps and
Hi Sullivan,
Thanks for your comments, some responses inline:
On 5/13/2012 1:11 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
1) Re version: A string that represents the version of this manifest. The User-Agent does not
interpret this value in any way and is opaque to everyone but the application itself.:
On 12 May 2012, at 19:02, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Hi everyone,
I recently joined the webapps working group and I'd like to introduce myself!
I work at Mozilla and for the past year or so have been working on our Apps
initiative [1]. Our goal has been to make it very easy for developers to
Ok, thanks for the responses.
For (1) we can expect a text change, right?
For (2), If the app manifest if obtained over non-secure HTTP, it is subject to
modification. If the app is delivered over non-secure HTTP, even more can be
modified. So is the plan to provide some kind of user warning
Hi Anant,
Great to see Moz pushing this forwards - and welcome to the WG!:) I'm excited
to see this proposal and I'm looking forward to working with you on it as part
of the WG.
On Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 19:02, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Why not simply reuse the widgets spec [2]?
A.
On Sat, 12 May 2012, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Apps are just web pages, why bother installing them?
A. This has been previously discussed on the list [4].
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0464.html
This has already received a reply:
On 5/12/2012 1:14 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012, Anant Narayanan wrote:
There are clear differences in perception between an app and a website
for most users. Most web content is expected to be free, but the same
content wrapped in an app is something people seem to be willing to
The installation security model of asking the user up-front to grant
trust just doesn't work because users don't understand the question, and
the installation security model of curating apps and trying to determine
by empirical examination whether an application is trustworthy or not just
On Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 21:14, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Q. Apps are just web pages, why bother installing them?
A. This has been previously discussed on the list [4].
[4]
17 matches
Mail list logo
