W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2011

[whatwg] Cache Manifest: why have FALLBACK?

From: Ilkka Huotari <ilkkah@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:10:27 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTiku2TnE3Ppz9uGTsMM3Nyo534jbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
> My initial thought is that including offline resources in a section entitled
> NETWORK will lead to more confusion among developers rather than less.

Well, the FALLBACK section is intended to access to network too, isn't
that right? I mean the resources in it are supposed to be fetched from
the network (with the fallback resource). The section name (FALLBACK)
doesn't reflect that though, it doesn't particularly reflect the fact
that it is going to access the network.  So, from this point too, I
think it would make sense to combine them?

Of course the section name NETWORK doesn't reflect the fact that there
might be an offline resource, but I don't think it would be a huge
problem? It would be backwards compatible which would be a nice point.

Also, other benefits could include that a simpler (shorter) spec could
perhaps make its further development/evolution easier.

I'm a new developer with HTML5 so these are my experiences from the
past few months, and can be off sometimes. But I thought I should
share them anyway.

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 05:10:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:05 UTC