Re: Where we stand...

> I've created a document[1] to record our case studies. It would be great
> if people could start filling in the part about their app.

Are you intending that this replace the section covering this in the
minutes page in the CG wiki?  If so, should we reference the GH doc
from the wiki rather than leaving the legacy content there?

>
> For this to be the most effective, there should be the following content:
>
> 1) a short blurb about the app, what it's suppose to do, etc., so that
> people unfamiliar with it have enough context,
> 2) the reason you're using AppCache / want to make an offline app,
> 3) the architecture of your app,
> 4) particular constraints you might have (e.g. extra security or privacy
> requirements, targeting features phones, specific perf metrics, etc.),
> 5) requirements you have to take that app online,
> 6) key issues you have with existing solutions.

Presumably we're mainly looking to add the case studies from the
Mozilla event, or do you think the case studies we have already here
need expanding to comprehensively cover this checklist in each case?

>
> Note it's pointless to make this AppCache bashing or focus on tacky
> workarounds. They might be worth mentioning, but it shouldn't be your main
> content.

Since this is case studies, detailing complex workarounds that form a
key part of the solution would add value here, wouldn't it?  Though
certainly we'll want to avoid talking about implementation techniques
and workarounds in the use cases.

I'm happy to add some more detail to the FT Labs projects case
studies, if that's going to offer the most value to the overall
effort.

Cheers,

Andrew

-- 

------------------------------
This email was sent by a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office at 
80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL.  Registered in England and Wales with company 
number 53723.

Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 15:34:22 UTC