- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:33:39 +1000
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Nottingham, Mark <mnotting@akamai.com>
- Cc: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
On January 20, 2015 at 7:40:36 AM, Ilya Grigorik (igrigorik@google.com) wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Nottingham, Mark > wrote: > > > Well, I'm liking this a lot more than the current proposal. What's the > > intersection with ? CC:ing Marcos. > > > > Seems like they're independent mechanisms. From what I understand, manifest > spec is geared towards an "installable application", whereas the packages > we're describing here are simply arbitrary bundles of files.. For example, > a JS module and its dependencies, a collection of images, or any arbitrary > collection of files [1], and the primary value here is ability to provide a > single URL to ease distribution, sharing, etc. Yes, this is also my impression; they have different purposes. I'm aware the name "web manifest" leads to confusion.
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 00:36:13 UTC