Offline storage is hard in a browser, as you pointed out; that's too much
detail for me to understand quickly, and I have no comment yet. In
principle, such concern is valid.
Even the w3 held a working group for a while that was around how broken app
cache was
On 16 August 2014 00:29, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
We don't need apps.
Read this to find out why you're wrong:
http://gigaom.com/2014/08/01/wikipedias-new-apps-are-good-for-you-but-theyre-even-better-for-the-developing-world/
Dan
--
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, at 00:18, Dan Garry wrote:
On 16 August 2014 00:29, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
We don't need apps.
Read this to find out why you're wrong:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:40 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
Why not use in-browser offline storage?
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/features/storage
One of my favorite articles:
http://alistapart.com/article/application-cache-is-a-douchebag
--
Yuvi Panda T
http://yuvi.in/blog
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, at 10:04, Dan Garry wrote:
On 16 August 2014 00:29, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
We don't need apps. We need mobile websites which work as good as an app
does.
Oh, the waste of effort.
It appears to me like you have issues with this project that go
Dmitry Brant wrote:
The fact that you don't see the benefits of the native app over the mobile
website is simply an indication that we still have a lot of work to do with
the apps, which we are excited to do.
Partly this is because you don't support my mobile platform.
Dmitry Brant wrote:
