- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:36:38 +0100
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Cc: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, "public-fixing-appcache@w3.org" <public-fixing-appcache@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
On Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 11:16, Tobie Langel wrote: > > > On 10/31/12 10:21 AM, "Jake Archibald" <jaffathecake@gmail.com (mailto:jaffathecake@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > On 30 October 2012 22:03, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com (mailto:tobie@fb.com)> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Following up on Art's post below, I think it makes sense for this group > > > to > > > concentrate on writing up the use cases, requirements and case studies > > > as > > > originally planned and move the rest of the conversation to the WebApps > > > WG. > > > > > > Are there any objections to this? > > > > Agreed. Although we shouldn't shy away from criticising how the > > current spec meets use-cases in a troublesome way. > > > > More productively, we should work with WebApps WG to make sure the new > version of the spec meets the use-cases in an developer-friendly way. > This was clearly the issue with the original AppCache: AFAIK, it was never put in front of "real" developers before being standardised. It would be good to start thinking about how this will be road-tested early by developers to make sure it is easy to use (in some representative way). Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes the WHATWG made with the original version. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:37:10 UTC