- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:30:20 +0100
- To: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>
On Monday, October 14, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote: > On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:21 PM, Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com (mailto:j.majnert@samsung.com)> wrote: > > > On 2013-10-04 11:20, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote: > > > > > What is the problem the group would like to solve by standardizing "unsigned" packaged apps that is not solved by "hosted apps" (for the sake of a better word) and ServiceWorkers (that will hopefully address the offline problem)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is probably not much. > > > > > > I cannot come up with any compelling reasons either. Others? > > > > To use a hosted app, you still need to go online at least once. > > How about distribution of apps via memory cards or similar, just for side-loading, no store or web involved? IIRC this was a major concern for some major operators when WAC2.1 was discussed a few years back. > > In the spirit of reusing existing technology, I think this requirement should be addressed by the Widgets family of specifications [1]. "Web and offline distribution" was one of the original design goals [2]. Side-loading of signed/unsigned packaged apps is already supported by the Widgets family of specs. > All - anything missing or broken in terms of offline distribution in Widgets? Not that I know of. It was not an issue in WAC. > Feedback from developers? Any known issues that have required implementers to extend Widgets for this particular use case? None that I know of. -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 10:30:56 UTC