W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Installing web apps

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:04:04 -0500
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps@w3.org, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <659EA788-1171-4A5F-BC07-DE55D7FA6133@w3.org>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>

On 2012-02 -01, at 15:23, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Hi Tim,  
> 
> On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 at 16:42, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 
>> Note that when people talk about installation, they often immediately discuss
>> packaging and manifest formats, which will need to be defined,
> 
> Umů we have a REC for that, remember?  

Yes, but I'm specifically trying to avoid the discussion of whether you use
widgets or manifests or node.js or what.

Sorry, we have come a long way from my original comment on public-webaps about 
the same-origin-policy needing a way of letting a script know why the 
access failed, which lead to Ian H saying that here was no need
for installation and my saying that there was.  So I was arguing for the need
for installation, and I am if course aware of widgets.

I precisely *didn't* want to get into a detail about whether everyone should use
widgets or will use widgets -- I want to argue for XMLHTTPRequest 
being designed to be able to be used not only in an untrusted web page,
but e.g. from an installed widget, or node.js for that matter,
which means returning a defined error response when the privilege is
insufficient, instead of faking a network error.
I've been trying to write code which will work in any of these.


Tim
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 21:04:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT