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

Re: Widgets - WARP, Widgets Updates and Digital Signatures

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:15:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4C975E71.6020502@opera.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>


On 9/20/10 2:43 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> 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?
>>

Good questions, Henri.

> I think it would be unfair of me to reply to both Henri and Marcos'
> request for usecases and comparison to Application Cache off the cuff as
> it were.
>
> I'll pull some time aside and write up usecases + possible approaches to
> each one and reply back at a later date with a more considered response.

No probs, Nathan.

Basically, it comes down to control:

AppCache = website controls update process.

Widgets = stored "forever" (like a CD or other ol' school media). User 
can sometimes control when the app is updated. Don't always require a 
server.

That's about it. There is a time an a place for each - they don't really 
compete with each other. Widgets are just a simple packaging format with 
a fairly simple API for storing stuff and getting some metadata. It just 
happens that they can use the awesomeness of HTML5.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 13:16:22 GMT

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