Re: Offline, Re: [W3C Webmob] Welcome back everyone!

On Tuesday, 14 January 2014 at 21:06, Jo Rabin wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:11, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote:
>  
> >  
> >  
> > On Tuesday, 14 January 2014 at 01:17, Natasha Rooney wrote:
> >  
> > > * Offline *
> > > https://github.com/w3c-webmob/offline
> > > http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mobile/Work#TASK_FORCE:_Offline
> > > I will be kickstarting the offline document and testing over the next few days. Please check the github repo and see the skeleton of the document. Currently I think it is focussing too much on the past issues but I still feel like these things need to be documented. Take a look and let me know your honest thoughts. If you wish to join me in the Offline Task Force please also remember to add yourself to the Work wiki page.
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > I feel that the document might not be a good use of our time or of value to those working on Service Workers, as the problems are already well-known and documented in various places.  
>  
> In what way well-known, and to whom?

To those working on and/or implementing the problem. Basically, these guys plus the other folks who have filed bugs:
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/graphs/contributors

Also, to browser vendors having to deal with the fallout of appcache. Try us, but I'm sure you will just get a "Oh, you are here about offline on the Web? get in line, buddy... and yes, the line goes all the way around the block... three times. Hope you brought your sleeping bag." :)
  
See, for example:  
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=appcache
> Is there a perspective that can usefully be added from this IG’s perspective? Might be helpful to summarise for the group’s benefit.


Maybe, but verification that the proposed solution works is infinitely more useful than more opinions (which we've now had for years) - by "we" I again mean browser vendors and web developers. As we get an understanding if ServiceWorkers are even usable (through making some example applications), this IG might be able to make more recommendations as to where they could be applied or what is missing from the platform. Right now, no one knows - and we won't know until we try it (we didn't try it with appcache and looked what happened!).   
   
> > I'm watching the Github repo + the various implementations, and everything seems to be happily progressing at this point.  
>  
>  
> That’s fab, most likely most of us are not watching it, so would be good to see such a summary.

There is mostly consensus amongst Chrome and Firefox engineers about the form ServiceWorkers should take - there is no indication, AFAIK, of what Microsoft thinks of the proposal ... and there are mixed signals from Apple... maybe something for this IG to bug them about - but I imagine, like the rest of us, they are wondering where the hell the spec is.  

What a ServiceWorker is is summarised here (it's in an easy to follow format intended for developers - it's not a spec):  
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/blob/master/explainer.md

There is not yet any specification. We are hopeful one will emerge next month as Mozilla and Chrome engineers continue to define the architecture based on their understanding of the problem.  You can see the outstanding issues here:  
https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues


> > So, I feel pretty strongly that where we could have most impact is by actually building the various applications that are suggested here (just cheap nasty versions of each; enough to show that "stuff works"[tm]):
> >  
> > https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/tree/master/examples
> >  
> > As such, I suggest we don't do the document and instead make and/or suggest new example applications... besides, making apps is more fun than writing boring documents ;)  
>  
> Interesting point of view. This group is chartered to write documents iirc.  
sure ... HTML documents... with a little JS? :) But seriously, our goal as per the Charter "is to accelerate the development of Web technology so that it becomes a compelling platform for mobile applications and the obvious choice for cross platform development."  

We will do that by any means possible. And in order to be able to produce any additional requirement documents, it will mean we will have to get our hands very dirty in order to truly understand the problems that developers will face. We are in a privileged position to do this - as we have both Mozilla and Chrome willing to give us access to early prototypes, etc. It's just too good of an opportunity to miss IMO.

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 23:18:28 UTC