- From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:21:30 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>, "public-fixing-appcache@w3.org" <public-fixing-appcache@w3.org>
On 18 September 2012 12:25, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > The more I think about this and read the (justified) use cases, the more I > tend to be convinced that it would be best to start with the simplest, > smallest low-level approach that makes it possible to implement richer > behaviour on top of. It's not a terribly original thought, but I would > rather leave the intricacies involved in the sort of dependency resolution > you describe to library code. If common patterns emerge from that, we can > then standardise those. The thing I like about the proxy solution is it's more (likely to be) explicit, and as difficult as it looks. Whereas the manifest makes things look simpler than they are, leading to 'gotchas'. It'd be interesting to see someone have a stab at a higher level solution (will spend some time reading DataCache). I'm worried about it going so low-level it becomes a barrier for most developers, like WebGL.
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:21:57 UTC