On 24/06/13 12:24, Robin Berjon wrote:
> * When Mozilla made this restriction (I don't know if it's still in
> place) for its apps, developers complained.
Having multiple sub-domains is more complex than creating a directory
for a developer. Also, sometimes, it is not possible, depending on your
h
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:49:09 +0400, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
All of this information can of course be duplicated in each HTML page
that an application consists of. But that's a lot of information
duplication. It would definitely put
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> All of this information can of course be duplicated in each HTML page that
> an application consists of. But that's a lot of information duplication. It
> would definitely put some hard requirements on that generation of HTML pages
> is alwa
On Jun 19, 2013 6:57 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
> > The current proposal can be found here:
> > http://manifest.sysapps.org/
>
> I wonder to what extent we actually need a manifest. I think it's main
> benefit might be in grouping a s
On 19/06/2013 08:35 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
It would be interesting to list the downsides of this approach to see if the
tradeoff is worth making.
Downsides:
* More DNS queries.
* More effort to deploy a simple one page application.
*
On 19 Jun 2013, at 07:59, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:56:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> The current proposal can be found here:
>>> http://manifest.sysapps.org/
>>
>> I wonder to what extent we a
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:15:30 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
wrote:
One of the scenarios I have in mind is where a few apps from an origin
use some common stuff. Which is obviously increasing the attack surface
in the way that you m
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
wrote:
> One of the scenarios I have in mind is where a few apps from an origin use
> some common stuff. Which is obviously increasing the attack surface in the
> way that you mention, but if the same people are forced to use different
> ori
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:27:33 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:56:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
Downside of that approach is increased attack surface for a suite
[of] applications
Can you please ex
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:56:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
> wrote:
>> Downside of that approach is increased attack surface for a suite
>> [of] applications
>
> Can you please expand on that?
Say you have http://example.org/mail/ and
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
> There are similar discussions in ebook (ePub format) communities. It is not
> solved yet. The current manifest system is a bit tedious and they try to come
> up with something that would be easier to create in terms of authoring.
Yeah, whate
Charles McCathie Nevile [2013-06-19T02:59]:
> I think pretty much any mechanism that groups pages *is* a manifest.
There are similar discussions in ebook (ePub format) communities. It is not
solved yet. The current manifest system is a bit tedious and they try to come
up with something that wou
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:56:13 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Marcos Caceres
wrote:
The current proposal can be found here:
http://manifest.sysapps.org/
I wonder to what extent we actually need a manifest. I think it's main
benefit might be in grouping a s
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Tobie Langel (mailto:to...@w3.org)> wrote:
> > It would be interesting to list the downsides of this approach to see if
> > the tradeoff is worth making.
>
> Downsides:
>
> * More DNS queries.
>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> It would be interesting to list the downsides of this approach to see if the
> tradeoff is worth making.
Downsides:
* More DNS queries.
* More effort to deploy a simple one page application.
* Incompatible with existing web application infr
On 6/19/13 6:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It might be though that maybe we should put the boundary for
applications on the web on the origin level. It would certainly be
extremely convenient and allow for a whole bunch of simplifications.
My immediate reaction is that this would be best. Anyt
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> It might be though that maybe we should put the boundary for
> applications on the web on the origin level. It would certainly be
> extremely convenient and allow for a whole bunch of simplifications.
I feel the same way. It would
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> The current proposal can be found here:
> http://manifest.sysapps.org/
I wonder to what extent we actually need a manifest. I think it's main
benefit might be in grouping a set of pages, but whether that needs to
be via a manifest I'm less
Ping… anyone wanna work with me on this?
On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 at 11:47, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> While we transition the application manifest spec from SysApps to WebApps,
> I'd like to kick off discussion by encouraging people to either discuss the
> current proposal here or over on GitHub.
While we transition the application manifest spec from SysApps to WebApps, I'd
like to kick off discussion by encouraging people to either discuss the current
proposal here or over on GitHub.
The current proposal can be found here:
http://manifest.sysapps.org/
Repo is here:
https://github.com
20 matches
Mail list logo
