- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:23:46 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
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