W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: DataCache API - editor's draft available

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:39:00 -0700
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
CC: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <749F45FA745A3244A87A63316D4E26B187C015E13D@NA-EXMSG-C108.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On  Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > What I'm asking for is a more unified proposal that says "If you
> > have already implemented AppCache, here's what you add to make the
> > same cache provide the additional functionality needed to enable
> > these additional use cases." This will inevitably be a compromise
> > from what a pure implementation looks like (your current DataCache
> > spec, say) but lots of the web is necessarily a compromise because
> > it builds on prior art that might not have been ideal but has been
> > specified, built and deployed (and not always in that order).
> >
> > This would allow people to form a judgement about whether the
> > additional use cases are worth the additional effort instead of
> > whether the additional use cases are worth yet another cache. I
> > think the ship has already sailed on AppCache and we can't undo that
> > even if we wanted to and I don't think a competing solution is the
> > right approach.
> 
> What kind of extensions/changes to AppCache would be acceptable at
> this point? In a previous exchange with Ian, he declined to consider
> DataCache like extensions to ApplicationCache for HTML5, which might
> be the reasonable thing to do. I can of course put together a
> proposal, but it would be good to know from browser vendors what their
> preferences are in this matter.
> 
> I am open to the idea of incrementally evolving AppCache to be more
> supportive of DataCache requirements.

At this point we haven't made a commitment one way or the other about whether we will implement support for AppCache in the next release of IE (or at all). It is supported in at least two shipping browsers and so we're naturally considering the possibility (along with a huge list of other possible features). I am confident that we won't implement a competing and unintegrated separate model, as Maciej put it, such as DataCache. As I've said, I think that would be a mistake.

My preference would be to see this functionality proposed as an evolution of AppCache. While I can't commit that we would implement it any time soon, it would be included in our considerations and at the very least if we implement AppCache we would try to ensure any architecture we select wouldn't preclude these extensions in the future. With work on the HTML5 spec trying to get it locked down towards a Last Call, adding new features to that document is clearly less desirable and I understand Ian's reluctance to incorporate extensions there. I think a separate spec written here that proposes just the extensions and explains how it relates to the AppCache analogous to your DataCache spec would be appropriate but that's just my personal preference.

Cheers,

Adrian.
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 16:42:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT