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 

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:46:01 UTC