W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:06:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4D996DEF.9010102@jumis.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, ext Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>, lrbabe@gmail.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/3/2011 11:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
>> provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
>> (again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component
>> to use to file feature requests for Offline Web apps.
> If one wants to send e-mail and be guaranteed a response, then the
> whatwg@whatwg.org list will be most effective.
> If one wants to discuss the issue within the W3C context, then
> public-html@w3.org is the list most appropriate for the current spec text.

I'd prefer to see discussion continue on public-webapps . I'm not 
against cross posting.

"Offline" apps are the first and only instance of an 'installable' 
applications implementation across vendors.

At some point, I hope to see some discussion about an installation manifest,
for apps which require privileges across origins and/or other enhanced 

This seems to be the direction things are going (from Google's Chrome):
<link rel="chrome-application-definition" href="arbitrary-manifest.json">

That scheme allows the author to provide a user with a choice, prior
to prompting them for permissions.

For an application vendor, that's mighty helpful, as some users reject:
"Do you want to grant this website access to 
but accept: "Do you want to grant this website access to this one domain".

Google Chrome

Mozilla Firefox

Those two vendors are converging.

<link rel> seems more appropriate for icons. Apple is taking that route.

HTML manifest files seem appropriate for requesting same-origin exceptions,
which is part of why I'm keeping an eye on this thread.

Those .install() calls are still a good idea, as vendors have their own 
unique extensions and distribution mechanisms.

I don't expect to get background pages / content pages into a web apps 
spec any time soon.
They're the same concept across Firefox/Chrome/Safari, but there are a 
lot of surrounding details.

Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 07:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:18 UTC