- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:44:05 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: W3C CoreMob CG <public-coremob@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2012, at 11:21 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:13:34 +0200, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote: >> On 6/11/12 11:05 AM, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 23:03:36 +0200, Robert Shilston >>> <robert.shilston@ft.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 2) Ability to create home screen / chrome-less web apps without needing >>>> >>>> native wrappers. A combination of >>>> https://people.mozilla.com/~anarayanan/webapps.html and the Fullscreen >>>> API will help this. >>> >>> Apart from lack of broad implementation (which is obviously a >>> show-stopper for practical deployment of an app), do you have any >>> comments about what widgets did wrong in this area? >> >> Outside of the name? :-P > > Seriously, I think the name turned people off - and while that seems silly it was also a real problem. I'd like to understand what other real problems existed in that technology stack, because I have found a lot of things it got right (other than deployment). My list: • the name, "Web Runtime Application Packaging" (WRAP) was much better; • the timing, most of the work happened before most browser vendors realised that packaged Web apps could be useful; • the XML, it's silly but some people care; • mixing packaging and configuration, I think it would have been more successful if the configuration could have immediately applied to hosted apps; • insufficient thinking about the runtime, because going offline in that way and opening the door to unsafe APIs has implications that are useful to think about before building a packaging format (the widget URI scheme was just one small plug in that hole); • the security, XML may be acceptable to some people, but to many of those XML DigSig isn't. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 10:44:35 UTC