- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:35:24 +0000
- To: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
- Cc: Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>, "public-webappstore@w3.org" <public-webappstore@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 at 10:07, 전종홍 wrote: > BTW, we need to start to talk about the standardized manifest format. Correct. FWIW, I've started defining both the types and the processing rules for the manifest format (you can see an early draft here, which I hope to send as a pull request once it's a bit more complete): http://marcoscaceres.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-Security/Overview.html Please be mindful that this is very early work, but general feedback about the direction would be appreciated. > > This is a draft comparison table for the manifest in the Web Stores. > (It compares three types of manifest format : W3C Widget, Mozilla App Store, Chrome Store) > It must be emphasised that the data relating to Mozilla is not for FxOS, it's for the "Mozilla App Sore" (this has caused confusion in the specification). This means that apps that do not meet the requirements of the store will still run perfectly fine in FxOS (e.g., an app without a description or an app without a default_locale will happily run). We should be careful to not codify specific application store requirements into the specification (as it unnecessarily burdens developers early in the development process and encourages them to just use dummy data). Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 10:37:23 UTC