On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Simpson, Grant Leyton
glsim...@indiana.edu wrote:
This is what I had assumed. I love the idea.
However, I think installation is a bad metaphor, given that users will have
preconceived notions about what installation means,
namely that installed apps live on
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:27:48 +0100, Biju bijumaill...@gmail.com wrote:
IE 9 is introducing meta-tags for custom jumplist actions (+ Pinned
Sites).
Mozilla is also planning to do same
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=605222
Some website (http://www.pcworld.com/ ) already started
IE 9 is introducing meta-tags for custom jumplist actions (+ Pinned Sites).
Mozilla is also planning to do same
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=605222
Some website (http://www.pcworld.com/ ) already started using it !!!
At present IE9 make jumplist using msapplication-*
If we dont
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:03 +0200, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
meta
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
Reviving ancient thread...
To get a feel for the different approaches and tradeoffs, I've
implemented a prototype of this using the two of the approaches that
were discussed in this thread:
1. Embed metadata in the
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:03 +0200, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
meta name=application-name content=...
You're right -- that one
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:03 +0200, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
meta name=application-name content=...
You're right -- that one does exist already within the page. And it is
a shame to waste these existing
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:26:12 +0200, Atul Varma ava...@mozilla.com wrote:
For what it's worth, I think that giving developers tools to easily
define more granular security mechanisms without resorting to subdomains
is a win in terms of usability, as it's quite difficult to figure out
how to
Aaron Boodman (劉) a...@google.com wrote:
Every crx file is signed. The signature and public key are part of
the
zip file itself, just after the signature. The zip format allows
extra
data there. When you took apart those crx files, if you used 'unzip'
from the command line, you may have
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
Aaron Boodman (劉) a...@google.com wrote:
If we add paths to the mix, we can do this. Applications on the same
origin can circumvent it if they want, but why would they? SOP
already
guarantees that apps on the same origin are
On 6/8/10 10:47 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Henri Sivonenhsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
Aaron Boodman (劉)a...@google.com wrote:
If we add paths to the mix, we can do this. Applications on the same
origin can circumvent it if they want, but why would they? SOP
already
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Atul Varma ava...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 6/8/10 10:47 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
Aaron Boodman (劉) a...@google.com wrote:
If we add paths to the mix, we can do this. Applications on the same
origin
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Yes, doing this correctly is quite subtle. I'd pitch the feature more
as developer connivence rather than for security. Apps that are
hosted in the same origin need to trust each other.
That is what we were planning on.
-
On May 26, 2010, at 20:10, Aaron Boodman wrote:
This isn't really the point of this mail, but I just want to point out
that there are more differences between wgt and crx than the format of
the manifest file. The most important is that the identify of a crx
file is a public key, and all crx
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
After googling around a bit, I was unable to find a signed .crx file for
analysis. (I took apart 3 .crx files and gave up.) Is the signing mechanism
documented somewhere? .wgt reinvents the .jar signing wheel by the basic
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On May 26, 2010, at 20:10, Aaron Boodman wrote:
This isn't really the point of this mail, but I just want to point out
that there are more differences between wgt and crx than the format of
the manifest file. The most
On 2010-05-26 19:10, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Henri Sivonenhsivo...@iki.fi
wrote:
There's a zip file with a .crx extension that contains an icon, a
permission manifest and potentially the code of the app (Building
a serverless app). When the .crx file contains the
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
On 2010-05-26 19:10, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Henri Sivonenhsivo...@iki.fi
wrote:
There's a zip file with a .crx extension that contains an icon, a
permission manifest and potentially
Grant Leyton Simpson glsim...@indiana.edu wrote:
This is what I had assumed. I love the idea. However, I think
installation is a bad metaphor, given that users will have
preconceived notions about what installation means, namely that
installed apps live on their machine and are under their
Hello Henri,
Thank you for the thoughtful mail. I really appreciate you taking the
time to understand the proposal.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
I don't think it's a given that everyone who is talking about installable
Web apps is talking about HTTP
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Aaron Boodman a...@google.com wrote:
!-- for UAs that want a button in the Chrome to appify --
button onclick=navigator.installApplication()install/button
Sorry, I meant for UAs that want a button in the content area to appify.
- a
One question I have off the top of my head is how updates are handled. I like
the idea of better integration with the OS and the browser but I don't want to
lose one of what I see as the best elements of web app development, namely the
need to not have to update clients' copies of the app
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:12:44 +0200, Simpson, Grant Leyton
glsim...@indiana.edu wrote:
One question I have off the top of my head is how updates are handled. I
like the idea of better integration with the OS and the browser but I
don't want to lose one of what I see as the best elements of
This is what I had assumed. I love the idea. However, I think installation is
a bad metaphor, given that users will have preconceived notions about what
installation means, namely that installed apps live on their machine and are
under their control (for the most part).
On May 25, 2010, at
This has come up before, but since Google has officially announced the
project at IO, and Mozilla has voiced interest in the idea on their
blog, I felt like it might be a good to revisit.
Google would like to make today's web apps installable in Chrome.
From a user's point of view, installing a
I think that unifying as much as possible would be a win. We could either:
a) each browser has their own formats, and someone generates tools to spit
them all out
b) come to some agreement on at least a base set (with vendor goodies added)
As a developer, I want to create one app and send that
26 matches
Mail list logo
