W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

Re: capability restrictions in the runtime strawman

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:38:16 +0200
Cc: W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <931A6893-A708-44E8-AE25-3C597DA5FC1A@berjon.com>
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Hi Wayne,

On Jun 21, 2012, at 00:19 , Carr, Wayne wrote:
> The disabled features in the runtime model strawman:  "The runtime must prevent the application from loading remote subresources using mechanisms that do not have a reasonable offline user experience or programmatic error handling. For example, the runtime must prevent the application from loading remote scripts, workers, iframes, images, and style sheets"  Also disallowed: "form submission"
> I understand that's just a straw man, but it may reflect on expectations on what the scope of the WG is.  Our expectation is that these standalone apps can do what browser based web apps can do and more, not less (other than things like history that are dropped because it isn't in a browser).  We'd expect a newspaper app could fetch updated pages, css, images, script and use web workers and submit forms.

I don't think that it sets expectations on the WG  so don't worry about that part. What it does do however is make a number of rather bold proposals, and gives everyone time to think about them before the WG kicks in in earnest. You certainly don't have to agree with the choices made by Adam and Erik's document, but I cannot recommend strongly enough that people take the time to acquaint themselves with the questions those choices address.

For instance, the ability to load remote scripts into a secure context creates interesting security issues. Should it be disabled, or should developers who rely on that for trusted apps just be made to dress up as Barney the Dinosaur for the following three months? If remote scripts are verboten, should the same be done to images?

A lot of the details in the strawman also assume a single-page application. There are good reasons to favour this (I personally do), but I have little doubt that it may be controversial.

One interesting question is the ability to take existing Web applications and systemise them. Removing Location might make sense for some aspects (Widgets had the same problem, solved it differently), but it might also kill the routing code that I currently use.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:09 UTC