Re: [whatwg] Gears design goals
On Jun 29, 2007 5:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/30/07, Andy Palay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it does place a very large burdon on the servers. Google would expect to have quite a few applications and my guess is the last thing we would want is to keep pinging every application to see if it up to date whenever any application is used. My Google apps currently use mail.google.com, docs.google.com, picasaweb.google.com ... Calendar uses www.google.com, I don't know why :-) So most of these apps have their own domains, and won't face a problem here. Is it overly burdensome to put separate apps in their own domains? That layout may not be the optimal layout for everyone (even perhaps Google, as it was a choice made before considering offline applications and how they will share information, etc.). The desire to share data and code could lead people to put all apps under a sigle domain. As for the burden to put apps in their own domain - First it seems to be an unnecessary requirement. I build an app, I choose a URL as I normally would and I would hope everthing would work out fine. Second it doesn't work well for environments where access to the domain is not possible. Consider the case of internal corporate apps. People post new web apps using their 'individual' internal corporate web server. They can choose whatever name they want. What they don't have is access to the domain in order to do this. I grant that this scenario is currently not well supported by the Gear's security model (something that I believe will need to change), but it is a real use of technology. If it is, then I would suggest simply allowing consistency to be partitioned by directory as well. I'm not sure of the best way for the server to configure that, though. I'm still not sure why not have consistency enforced at the application level. This way an application can pull code from whereever it needs to regardless of the directory structure. Andy
[whatwg] WF2 - form action=
WF2 says: When the [form element's action] attribute is absent, UAs must act as if the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative URI reference, and would thus point to the current document (or the specified base URI, if any). But: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cbase%20href%3D%22http%3A//google.com%22%3E%3Cform%3E%3Cinput%20type%3Dsubmit%3E In IE7, FF2, FF3, Opera 9.2, it ignores the base URI and always submits to the current page. In Safari 3, it does take account of the base URI. In all, form action= does the same as form. In all, form action=. does take account of the base URI. Perhaps it would be sensible to follow the majority. -- Philip Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [whatwg] Gears design goals
On 6/29/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manifest? I thought we were talking about the Mozilla proposal. I mentioned earlier that to get consistent updates without JARs, we have to add manifest support. Dave is working on it. I think he's following the Gears manifest format. Speak up Dave :-) Ok, then I believe we have gotten out of sync. Can you update the spec that you pointed me to earlier with your latest thoughts (I don't see the word 'manifest' in there)? - a
Re: [whatwg] Gears design goals
On 7/1/07, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/07, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manifest? I thought we were talking about the Mozilla proposal. I mentioned earlier that to get consistent updates without JARs, we have to add manifest support. Dave is working on it. I think he's following the Gears manifest format. Speak up Dave :-) Ok, then I believe we have gotten out of sync. Can you update the spec that you pointed me to earlier with your latest thoughts (I don't see the word 'manifest' in there)? I'm sure Dave will update it with his ideas and let us know when that happens... Rob -- Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more? Simon replied, I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled. You have judged correctly, Jesus said. [Luke 7:41-43]
