Re: Widgets - WARP, Widgets Updates and Digital Signatures

Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> cc: public-webapps
>>
>> Hi Claes,
>>
>> Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
>>> Hi Nathan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying your proposal.
>>>
>>> I interpret you so that you are proposing standardization of a general
>>> concept of "packaged and installed web applications". Something like
>>> http://code.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/index.html plus additional features
>>> from widgets specifications.
>>>
>>> This is something that can have a value by several reasons, for example:
>>> * Whole application package or only manifest/configuration file could be
>>> digitally signed.
>>> * Permission to use APIs could be given at installation time.
>>> * Manifest/configuration file could define network access limitations.
>>> * Web application marketing/deployment/charging advantages.
>>> I agree that the specifications you mention are applicable for a general
>>> concept of "packaged and installed web applications" but I believe that
>>> currently most people have the view that "widgets" are "packaged and
>>> installed web applications" that run small "live" applications on the home
>>> screen. However, what does the widgets specifications actually say? I
>>> haven't digged into the documents in detail but are they not already
>>> enabling a general concept of "packaged and installed web applications"?
>>> So far there has been a distinction between "browser", running dynamic
>>> content on web sites and "widget user agent", running installed web widgets.
>>> Reading you original mail in this thread you say:
>>> " Simply wondering why WARP, Widgets Updates and Digital Signatures aren't
>>> used to deploy js applications which run in the main browser context?".
>>>
>>> So, what are you actually proposing?
>>>
>>> * Update to HTML5 to support "packaged and installed web applications" in
>>> the "main browser context"?
>>> Plus
>>> * Updates to the Widgets specifications to enable the more general concept
>>> of "packaged and installed web applications"?
>> I'm proposing something before that, to consider whether "packaged and
>> installed web applications" should be considered and if it would be viable +
>> gain support from the main browser vendors, then to look at exactly how. I'd
>> loosely suggest that the work done on the Widgets specifications could be
>> re-used, forked or even that the Widgets specifications were re-scoped to
>> general client side web applications and aligned with the other work being
>> done within web-apps, html5 and device-apis. Ultimately it just seemed to me
>> like much of the heavy lifting has already been done under the banner of
>> widgets.
> 
> I thought that is what we had done already? I don't get it.
> 
>>> Furthermore, do we really want "packaged and installed web applications"
>>> to run by the same user agent, i.e. the normal browser as normal website
>>> based web applications? We may want to have different "user agent chromes"
>>> depending on type of web application.
>> Personally, yes, being able to make applications using a suite of
>> standardized languages and APIs with near universal deployment on a core set
>> of rapidly evolving runtimes, really, really, appeals :) I wouldn't suggest
>> that the scope be limited to user agent (ie browser vendors) only, but they
>> are the obvious target for most applications in the first instance.
> 
> As above. I thought that was what we (Web Apps WG - Widgets) have been
> doing for the last 5 years?

Maybe I've missed part of the specifications - are you telling me that I 
can package up an HTML,CSS,JS based application as per the widgets 
specification, include a WARP, Digital Signature, set the view-mode to 
windowed and that this will run as is, in the main browser context of 
the main browser vendors (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, IE etc)?

Regards,

Nathan

Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 16:11:49 UTC