- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 18:23:52 +0100
- To: Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com>
- Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>, "wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com" <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote: > Agreed. Thanks, > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:44 AM > To: Mandyam, Giridhar > Cc: Mounir Lamouri; public-sysapps@w3.org (mailto:public-sysapps@w3.org); wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com (mailto:wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com); Dave Raggett > Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of "app: URI scheme"; deadline April 26th > > On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > I should also add that it should not be a requirement that packaged apps run off the app: URI scheme. The runtime spec should RECOMMEND it. That should address Giri's concerns and give more freedom of choice if implementers want to use something else (e.g., a local http server per application). Again, all that matters is that the results are predictable and interoperable, not that app:// is used. > I've filed a bug on the manifest spec: https://github.com/sysapps/manifest/issues/38
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 17:24:24 UTC