Le samedi 17 septembre 2011 à 10:30 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
shortcut: if you want to (incorrectly, IMO) continue to lump widgets
and app cache, then do so making it clear that this is just one of the
use cases for widgets and certainly NOT the primary use case…
My document focuses on
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Le samedi 17 septembre 2011 à 10:30 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
shortcut: if you want to (incorrectly, IMO) continue to lump widgets
and app cache, then do so making it clear that this is just one of the
use
shortcut: if you want to (incorrectly, IMO) continue to lump widgets and app
cache, then do so making it clear that this is just one of the use cases for
widgets and certainly NOT the primary use case… And please add a separate
section just for Widgets in your document that explains the other
Hi Marcos,
Le samedi 03 septembre 2011 à 22:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
[sorry for the delay in responding]
Thank you for continuing to keep the document up to date. This document is
very helpful.
Thanks!
I have request: can you please ungroup Widgets and HTML's
ApplicationCache?
Hi Dom,
On Friday, 16 September 2011 at 19:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Le samedi 03 septembre 2011 à 22:47 +0200, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
[sorry for the delay in responding]
Thank you for continuing to keep the document up to date. This document is
very
Le vendredi 16 septembre 2011 à 21:36 +0700, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
I think they are actually not so different, and share many use cases.
Ok, I strongly object in the strongest of terms to them being put together
and I'm more than happy to debate any argument you might have for lumping
On 16 Sep 2011, at 13:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
IMO, keeping them together will lead to confusion. The use cases are
different: a widget can embed content that uses ApplicationCache, as
well as load in proprietary APIs (e.g., WAC).
Surely a Web-applicationcached app could also
