W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Widgets - WARP, Widgets Updates and Digital Signatures

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:34:31 +0300
Cc: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B5FCFA7C-A823-4378-BE36-4623A3DD93F7@iki.fi>
To: nathan@webr3.org
On Sep 8, 2010, at 19:27, Nathan wrote:

> With the advent of client side persistence solutions and ever increasing device/browser capabilities, it's now possible to make 100% client side js applications which run in the browser, everything from small games and micro-blog clients right up to full document/image editors. There is a strong shift in this direction from many corners of the web.
> 
> Currently application developers can choose between:
> (1) hosting the client side application on a 'website'.
> (2) creating a vendor specific 'extension'.
> 
> When really, what we all want/need is to be able to 'install' an application which runs in the main browser context (i.e. can be used off line, can be packaged as an application, can be signed, can contain an access request policy).

Wouldn't it be nicer if your case #1 had an HTML5 application cache manifest and browsers allowed the user to "install" the app in the sense of protecting the cached data from eviction?

What problem would widget packaging solve compared to using the HTML5 application cache? Do you want to distribute the application as an off-line file instead of making going to the Web site the first step of the installation process?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 10:35:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:13 GMT