This is very encouraging. It sounds like we agree in principal that the best
place for the features represented in the DataCache proposal are extensions
to the AppCache corner of the world.
My preference would be to keep the official AppCache spec stable right now,
but to begin designing those
On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
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
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Don't we have AppCache implementations in Firefox and Safari? Are there
parts of the spec that we don't yet have implementation experience or
enough feedback about?
I happen to think that work on DataCache should not wait for the long
term to
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
I don't think the problem is that we couldn't build yet another
cache that is similar but different to the AppCache that others are
already shipping so I don't think a reference implementation is the
solution. I think the problem is
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
While it might not be the perfect solution (we know the web far from
ideal and is a lot of compromise), this type of proposal would be a
lot more compelling to me if I could say This is what we have to
add, this is how, and here are the use
On Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
What I'm asking for is a more unified proposal that says If you
have already implemented AppCache, here's what you add to make the
same cache provide the additional functionality
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
While it might not be the perfect solution (we know the web far
from
ideal and is a lot of compromise), this type of proposal would be a
lot more compelling to me if I could say This is
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
While it might not be the perfect solution (we know the web far from
ideal and is a lot of compromise), this
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
While it might not be the perfect solution (we know the web far from
ideal and is a lot of compromise), this
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
On Monday, July 20, 2009 1:43 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
...
Does the situation change if I am building an application from
Hi Mark,
I am happy to see your feedback on DataCache. Forgive me for the delay
in responding.
On Jul 17, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I think this work is in an interesting space but, unfortunately,
it's doing it without reference to the existing HTTP caching model,
On Jul 17, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I do understand how Interceptor/DataCache works. And understand that
it's seamless and can (based on a decision
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
I agree with Jonas and I'd like to understand the expected use cases
better too. I think I get the point that making the network
On Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
I agree with Jonas and I'd like to understand the expected use cases
better too. I think I get the point that making the network access
seamless regardless of whether there is
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I do understand how Interceptor/DataCache works. And understand that
it's seamless and can (based on a decision made by the browser)
seamlessly intercept both XHR
I have published the first draft of the DataCache API, which is based
on Oracle's BITSY proposal [1]. Here's a link to the draft:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DataCache/
This document defines APIs for dynamically and statically
serving off-line representations of HTTP resources.
Hi Nikunj,
So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is
what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with.
Is the idea that people that use XMLHttpRequest to load data from the
server will in offline mode want to intercept those XHR requests and
On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is
what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with.
Thanks for asking. Please ask me again if this response does not
adequately address
On Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is
what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with.
[snip]
/ Jonas
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Nikunj R.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
So one of the things I've never fully understood with your proposal is
what usage patterns people are going to want to use this new API with.
Thanks
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
So one of the things I've never fully understood with your
proposal is
what usage patterns people
Hi Adrian,
I am glad to explain the use cases further as needed.
I addressed Jonas' questions in separate messages, so I will focus
here solely on your questions. Please see responses in-line.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
On
23 matches
Mail list logo
