- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:15:29 +0200
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 9/20/10 2:43 PM, Nathan wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> What problem would widget packaging solve compared to using the HTML5 >> application cache? Do you want to distribute the application as an >> off-line file instead of making going to the Web site the first step >> of the installation process? >> Good questions, Henri. > I think it would be unfair of me to reply to both Henri and Marcos' > request for usecases and comparison to Application Cache off the cuff as > it were. > > I'll pull some time aside and write up usecases + possible approaches to > each one and reply back at a later date with a more considered response. No probs, Nathan. Basically, it comes down to control: AppCache = website controls update process. Widgets = stored "forever" (like a CD or other ol' school media). User can sometimes control when the app is updated. Don't always require a server. That's about it. There is a time an a place for each - they don't really compete with each other. Widgets are just a simple packaging format with a fairly simple API for storing stuff and getting some metadata. It just happens that they can use the awesomeness of HTML5. -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 13:16:22 UTC