Re: Archive API

On 9/18/12 2:21 PM, "Jake Archibald" <jaffathecake@gmail.com> wrote:

>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'.

Yes. The former is a low level API. The latter, a high level API that
tries to do too much.

>It'd be interesting to see someone have a stab at a higher level
>solution (will spend some time reading DataCache).

DataCache is a low-level API.

>I'm worried about
>it going so low-level it becomes a barrier for most developers, like
>WebGL.

Having primitives is a good first step. One can always have library
authors build on top of them and let the market decide which solution is
the most successful, best one. Subsequently, these can be specified and
implemented natively.

--tobie

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 12:37:25 UTC