Re: Proposal for addition to WebStorage

Since this question has been asked several times before in slightly  
different ways, I have captured all the answers in one place. How does  
BITSY differ from HTML5's ApplicationCache, Gears LocalServer, and  
Dojo OfflineRest? See answers at http://o-micron.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-is-bitsy-different-from-html-dojo.html

# ApplicationCache does not allow programmatic inclusion of items  
(dynamic entries were removed some time ago); all data capture in  
BITSY is through an API, i.e., as a dynamic entry
# ApplicationCache does not secure one user's private resources from  
another; BITSY requires the presence of a specified cookie
# ApplicationCache only responds to GET and HEAD requests; BITSY can  
respond to arbitrary HTTP requests
# ApplicationCache does not allow an application to intercept any  
requests locally; BITSY allows application-defined JavaScript code to  
intercept requests locally
# ApplicationCache uses its own data format for identifying items for  
local storage and exludes any other formats such as JSON and Atom;  
BITSY does not have any format limitations
# ApplicationCache operates per its own refresh protocol and that  
excludes a different protocol, especially one that does not require  
all or nothing semantics for data versioning; BITSY has no protocol  
limitations.

Nikunj Mehta
http://o-micron.blogspot.com

On Apr 27, 2009, at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:52:22 +0200, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com 
> > wrote:
>> More specifically, we want to propose a specification for the
>> following APIs
>>
>> 1. Programmable HTTP cache
>> 2. Intercepting HTTP requests
>
> Have you looked at
>
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/offline.html
>
> as this reads very similar. (At least the first part.)
>
>
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 18:26:20 UTC