Re: Version identifier

Simple and easy to implement, but what's the use case?
On 30 Oct 2012 00:32, "Patrick Gillespie" <patorjk@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it would be useful, though for detecting settings under SETTINGS
> in JavaScript, I think it would be useful to put them under a settings
> property on the applicationCache object. That way they're grouped together
> and it'd be easy to do object detection for supported settings. Such a
> property could be a read-only map of the currently defined settings and
> could also have an unknown property, which could be a map of settings that
> were defined under SETTINGS that weren't recognized. Anyway, just thinking
> out loud, so take it with a grain of salt.
>
> best,
>
> - Pat
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>wrote:
>
>> Makes sense to me. We'd need to clearly spell out what the 'version'
>> attribute value contains in all cases. It'd be nice to be able
>> to distinguish between these two cases.
>> - no cache association
>> - a cache is associated, but with no version setting in the manifest file
>> Maybe undefined vs null?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It was discussed at the Mozilla-hosted meeting that a version
>>> identifier, to help developers identify what appcache was in use, would be
>>> helpful.  I wanted to make a simple proposal for that: a version token
>>> in the SETTINGS section.  This would be the token "version" followed by a
>>> single simple token string (not necessarily numeric; up to the developer
>>> what they actually put in there), e.g.:
>>>
>>> SETTINGS
>>> version 1.0
>>>
>>> this would then be exposed this on the applicationCache object:
>>>
>>> readonly attribute DOMString version;
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>
>>
>