Re: Where we stand...

1) I also had someone ask me about a use case that I don't see listed, but
it's fairly high level; is there a reason I am naively not understanding
why we don't have any provision for background updating?

2) I'm ambivalent, as I said at the MTV meeting, but are we going to follow
up on this issue here or have a sub-list in the HTML WG?

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Gillespie <patorjk@gmail.com>wrote:

> I didn't see this listed in the use cases, so I figured I'd throw it out
> there. It'd be nice if a web app could behave as normal and use the HTTP
> cache, but if a user was unable to connect to an app's server, the browser
> would instead load a Fallback version of the app. This would be of a
> benefit for legacy applications that aren't architected in a way to take
> advantage of appcache, but still want to leverage the ability to work
> offline / give a better user experience if the app is offline. For example,
> say you have an app on an internal network that users use every day. If its
> server or network connection goes down, a fallback version of the app could
> be loaded - and the developer could make this anything from a simple
> information page that attempted to periodically reconnect, to a lightweight
> version of the app. You can do this now if your app itself is cached, but
> you can't have just an offline / fallback version.
>
> best,
>
> - Pat
>