On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:58:07 +0100, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:06:57 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
wrote:
On 12/17/13 3:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
This is a good point. Would this have performance implications for
down-level browsers? I don't know
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
or
something else. Like you said, I think it's a conversation we need
to
have with the HTML people.
I’ll investigate a bit more. I’ve added
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
or
something else. Like you said, I think it's a conversation we need to
have with the HTML people.
I’ll investigate a bit more. I’ve added a bug here:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/91
I’ll just note that
On 12/17/13 3:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
This is a good point. Would this have performance implications for
down-level browsers? I don't know if prescanners etc in contemporary
browsers are smart enough to ignore script tags that use a non-JS
type attribute.
Gecko's is not. Not least because
On 9 December 2013 09:33:47 Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
IMO, it might be better not to define an explicit way to inline the
manifest, and let authors simply use data URIs to do that, if they see such
a need.
e.g. link rel=manifest href=data:application/manifest+json,{ ... }
If this becomes
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013, at 20:33, Yoav Weiss wrote:
IMO, it might be better not to define an explicit way to inline the
manifest, and let authors simply use data URIs to do that, if they see
such
a need.
e.g. link rel=manifest href=data:application/manifest+json,{ ... }
If this becomes a
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013, at 6:06, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Dec 4, 2013 6:20 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi wrote:
meta name=manifest content='{
a: 1,
b: foopy
}'
Are manifests really short enough for this kind of thing?
For single-page apps I would imagine it will be quite
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 08:18:31 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow it - just sayin’ its kinda crappy
because it encourages bad development practices (leading to single
page apps,
On Dec 3, 2013 11:18 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow it - just sayin’ its kinda crappy
because it encourages bad development practices (leading to single page
apps, etc.).
For
More comments inline, but I’ve started running a developer survey here about
the proposed solutions:
https://gist.github.com/marcoscaceres/7783977
See also:
https://twitter.com/marcosc/status/408150324629630976
Some really great feedback from the dev community on twitter! Please take a
look.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013 9:25 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We currently have both script.../script and script src=..., as
well as both style.../style and
On Dec 4, 2013 6:20 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi wrote:
meta name=manifest content='{
a: 1,
b: foopy
}'
Are manifests really short enough for this kind of thing?
For single-page apps I would imagine it will be quite simple yes. Not quite
as short as the above, but will
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I also think that we need a way to put the manifest in-line in the
main document. In part, technologies tend to be a lot easier to
understand if you can create a single-file demo. In part, for small
simple apps, having
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
Would it suffice to use the API? It’s much simpler than trying to write
out JSON by hand and wouldn’t require us to create any new special script
type, etc.
script
if(“requestBookmark” in navigator){
var
tl;dr - a few counter points for consideration, but I’m generally ok with
adding both the declarative inline alternative and with dropping the arguments
on the API in V1. For the declarative solution, we would drop using link in
favor of script entirely.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at
On Dec 3, 2013 9:25 PM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We currently have both script.../script and script src=..., as
well as both style.../style and style src. A big reason we have
both is for author convenience.
I
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow it - just sayin’ its kinda crappy because
it encourages bad development practices (leading to single page apps, etc.).
For simple apps I don't see anything wrong with single-page.
I'd
17 matches
Mail list logo
