RE: Feedback on "Offline Web Applications" (Editor's Draft 17 November 2007)

Out of curiousity, why does this draft refer to the SQL API but not the storage interface?  Is storage not also a solution to local data storage?

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:42 AM
To: Julian Reschke;
Subject: Re: Feedback on "Offline Web Applications" (Editor's Draft 17 November 2007)

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:54:35 +0100, Julian Reschke <>
> below is some feedback on "Offline Web Applications" (Editor's Draft 17
> November 2007) (<>).


Since there was some interest in this draft I got ACTION-58 to address the
feedback given in this e-mail.

> Summary: if the intent of this is to make people aware of the presence
> of these new things in HTML5, it's working. However, in it's current
> state it really requires the reader to go to the real spec to understand
> what's going on -- that may be ok, but in this case it would be helpful
> if it could point directly to the section of HTML5 containing the full
> details.

I added the two relevant pointers to the introduction section:

> Content:
> 2. SQL -- Not being familiar with what is being defined, I found the
> example a bit confusing. If this is meant to be an introduction, I think
> it would make sense to (1) show the DB creation first and (2) add a few
> sentences about how the API exactly looks like. So what elements does
> openDatabase() take(), why does db.transaction take a function argument,
> what exactly does the executeSQL function expect parameter-wise?


> 3. Offline Application Caching APIs -- seems the spec defines a new text
> format for defining the application caching. Is there a MIME type being
> defined? Any grammar for the format? Turns out this is defined in
> <>, so it's probably fine to
> leave it out here. However, *what* is defined over there ("Note: This is
> a willful double violation of RFC2046.") makes me nervous. Not sure why
> this isn't simply an XML format; instead of defining yet another special
> text format with (IMHO) quite obscure parsing rules (CR only as line
> delimiter???)

This seems to be feedback on HTML 5 rather the note so I'm unable to
address this.

> 3. Offline Application Caching APIs -- not sure that using "server.cgi"
> as a name is a good idea over here; my understanding was that Cool URIs
> Do Not Change, thus encoding some technology-specific extension into an
> URI generally is not a good idea. Suggest to simply use something like
> "events".

I think "server.cgi" more accurately indicates it takes a URI than if we
just used the "events" so I left at is. (If the technology changes a
permanent redirect can be used or you simply change the type using a
ForceType directive or something like that. Should not be much trouble.)

> Editorial:
> - The Javascript examples do not terminate statements with a semicolon.
> My understanding is that although it's legal, it's discouraged (see
> <>). Minimally, it's confusing to read
> for people who have grown up with C and Java.

I like writing JavaScript that way, but I got another example that
included them. So this is addressed now.

> - "...that takes up one mebibyte of storage." -- Typo?

This no longer appears in the draft. (It was not a typo though, a mebibyte
is the "official" name for 1024^2 bytes.)

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 20:28:49 UTC