On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, at 10:54, Daniel Friesen wrote: > On 2014-08-16, 4:56 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:40 AM, svetlana <[email protected]> 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 > > On 2014-08-16, 5:15 PM, svetlana wrote: > > ... > > That is OK, you and Yuvi Panda highlighted some important points. > > Thanks to both - I'll follow-up if I find solution to the application cache > > issues raised in the blog post linked earlier. > > > > svetlana > > Issues? The article is one of my favourites too, if you read through the > whole thing it describes a technique of combining appcache, > localStorage, and an iframe to make it possible for a site like > Wikipedia to be made to work offline. And localStorage could even be > substituted for IndexedDB (with a polyfill for WebSQL only browsers). > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/] >
Could someone please tell me why I'm getting two different threads with this subject in my inbox? I have trouble following. Thought that your point is that offline storage in browser is hard, and that's /why/ mobile apps exist. It's really hard to discuss this by email. svetlana _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
