- From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:43:17 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Adrian Bateman wrote: >> >> My preference would be to see this functionality proposed as an >> evolution of AppCache. While I can't commit that we would implement >> it >> any time soon, it would be included in our considerations and at the >> very least if we implement AppCache we would try to ensure any >> architecture we select wouldn't preclude these extensions in the >> future. >> With work on the HTML5 spec trying to get it locked down towards a >> Last >> Call, adding new features to that document is clearly less >> desirable and >> I understand Ian's reluctance to incorporate extensions there. > > My preference in general would be for us to wait until we have stable, > well-tested implementations before adding more features to appcache, > but I > certainly think that on the long term, appcache should be extended to > support more than it does now. As it stands, the model is quite > extensible, so I think it would be relatively easy for us to move in > that > direction in the future. Don't we have AppCache implementations in Firefox and Safari? Are there parts of the spec that we don't yet have implementation experience or enough feedback about? I happen to think that work on DataCache should not wait for the "long term" to arrive. May be it is just me, but I don't see harm in getting to an FPWD on DataCache before HTML5 Last Call. I do agree that we should not create an impression that AppCache is solid, and so am open to suggestions about avoiding that. Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 16:45:40 UTC