W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Offline Web Applications status

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:45:44 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimAH9k2mUkR-KUfCxxd87vGxHnb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: louis-rémi BABE <lrbabe@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
2011/4/7 Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>

>
>
> 2011/4/7 louis-rémi BABE <lrbabe@gmail.com>
>
>> Thank you all for your valuable answers.
>>
>> There seems to be a pretty solid agreement on "ability to exclude the
>> master page form the cache".
>> Michael, you are suggesting using a different way of referring to the
>> manifest: <http useManifest='x'>
>> Why not just let it be listed in the NETWORK section of the manifest?
>> It would make the means of including or excluding resources from the
>> cache more consistent.
>>
>
> I think the <html> tag syntax is a better API for the reasons mentioned in
> the whatwg list, i'll reiterate them here...
>
> > A few ideas on syntax...
> > a. <html useManifest='x'>
> > b. If the main resource has a "no-store" header, don't add it to the
> > cache, but do associate the document with the cache.
> > c. A new manifest section to define a prefix matched namespace for these
> pages.
> Option (c) isn't precisely targeted at individual resources, authors
> would have to arrange their URL namespace more carefully to achieve
> the desired results. Option (a) and (b) can be applied specifically to
> individual pages offering greater control over. And option (a) is the
> more explicit the two. Authors need only edit the page to get the
> desired result instead of having to arrange for the appropiate http
> headers. Readers of the code (and view sourcers of the pages) can more
> easily determine how this page should utilize the appcache just by
> looking at the source of the page.
>
> My pick would be option (a), <html useManifest='x'>
>
> The summary is that the <html useManifest='x'> is cleaner and clearer
> imo. The NETWORK section doesn't actually exclude resources from being added
> to the cache. For example you can explicitly list a url in the CACHE
> section, and again in the NETWORK section... guess what... the resource is
> added to the cache and will be utilized.
>
>
Also, I'm looking for a syntax that adds this new capability in a
non-breaking way. I want to avoid changing the semantics of the any existing
API since it's already shipped.


>
>> >Allow cross-origin HTTPS resources to be included in manifest files.
>> >This much is actually done already in chromium impl as described on the
>> whatwg list.
>> Is it already available in a stable version of Chrome?
>>
>
> Chrome 11 should hit the stable channel in ~18 days. It's in the beta
> channel now.
>
>
>> I would also like to see this one fully implemented in Firefox asap.
>> I'll get in touch with our developers.
>>
>
> Fantastic! I'll open a bug in webkit to do the same since.
>
>
>> Micheal, have you got use-cases for the 4th and 5th feature request of
>> this thread [1]?
>>
>
> This feature is more architecture driven than use-case driven. Without such
> a feature, while in many cases there may be a way to produce a solution that
> functions 'offline',  the trouble is that it's a completely different
> solution than in the 'online' case. I'll follow up with you about these
> features in particular.
>
>
>
>> And could you please keep me updated with your implementation efforts
>> in Chromium?
>>
>
> I would be very happy to and likewise would be appreciated.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Louis-Rémi
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 16:46:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT