W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fixing-appcache@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Offline WebApps workshop report (was: fixing-appcache - Choosing a Chair for your Community Group)

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:22:10 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: "public-fixing-appcache@w3.org" <public-fixing-appcache@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBB2043B.79C64%tobie@fb.com>
On 4/16/12 5:13 PM, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org> wrote:

>Le lundi 16 avril 2012 à 15:09 +0000, Tobie Langel a écrit :
>> >Hmmm... No, I think I really meant that AppCache is more oriented
>>toward
>> >better performances for on-line caching (via bundle of resources)
>>rather
>> >than off-line apps (where its usage remain awkward to say the least).
>> 
>> It's more often **used**  for offline caching, but it's clearly
>> **designed** for the offline app use case. In the "Fixing AppCache"
>> section you write:
>> 
>>     "The update model requires developers to write applications that are
>> essentially offline, but may be connected, rather than an online
>> application that may be offline on occasion."
>>
>> Which I agree with, and which contradicts your previous statement, no?
>
>I think I see what you mean; I've rewritten this as:
>"Based on the discussions, it seemed that the current design of AppCache
>is more oriented toward the former than the latter, but its limitations
>make it more often used for cache improvements."
>Is that better?

I would go for something along the lines of:

"Based on the discussions, it seemed that the current design of AppCache
is more oriented toward the former than the latter. However, there is much
more demand to use it as a cache improvement than there is to use it for
building offline apps."
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 15:22:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 April 2012 15:22:57 GMT