- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:47:54 +0200
- To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Liza Daly <liza@safaribooksonline.com>, Brady Duga <duga@google.com>
On 23/06/2015 14:16 , Dave Cramer wrote: > I find it interesting we all talk about the flaws of AppCache as if > it was gravity or or the U.S. Congress, immune to change. Is there > any interest in making AppCache work? There is. That's Service Worker :) I'm not joking. Service Workers came out of a series of meetings called "Fixing AppCache". The initial idea hadn't been to come up with a new API, it really was to figure out a way to take the existing AppCache and somehow make it tick. But it surfaced during that work that that was going to be pretty hard, if doable. Service Worker was put forward as a proposal to make it possible to support the AppCache use cases better, but in script. In fact one of the first things that happened when we had the basics of the API hashed out was that I used those to write an exact AppCache replacement in that API. The downside of SW is that they aren't declarative, which is what you'd like for a lot of cases where scripting seems overkill. I can imagine that once we do have SW sufficiently operational (and it does seem to be making good progress there) then a useful declarative subset can be made available (and shimmed). But we're definitely not at that step yet. > This is going to be an interesting way for me to learn Javascript ;) JavaScript is fun :) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 14:48:07 UTC