Re: Offline Web Applications status

It is interesting that on the day when I published the WG Note for
DataCache, we are having this conversation. Just goes to show that there is
more than just a couple of us interested in finding a solution to this
problem.

Like all things Web, incremental is better than revolutionary. However, I am
have never been comfortable that AppCache was the right increment.

Nikunj

2011/3/23 Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>

> Hi, comments inline
>
> 2011/3/24 louis-rémi BABE <lrbabe@gmail.com>
>
>> ## Maybe Web devs don't use App Cache because they don't understand
>> what it is... ##
>>
>
> I think most webdevs are expecting more than what is offered. It seems like
> a half baked solution to a potentially useful requirement.
>
>
>> ## Can you see other reasons? ##
>> Before going back to developers or writing yet another App Cache
>> documentation, I wanted to have *your* feelings about this mechanism.
>> You might have a different impression about its adoption and be aware
>> of successful real-world use-cases.
>> You might have asked developers yourself and received a different
>> feedback.
>> Maybe you feel that Web advocates are not doing a good enough job at
>> documenting this feature, producing demos and clarifying its nature.
>> Maybe you think that the problem has to do with the specification itself.
>> Maybe there is an evolution of the specification underway that I am
>> not aware of.
>>
>
> One thing that really gripes me is the fact that any changes require you to
> re-parse and re-download the entire cache again if any changes are detected
> to the manifest. I think the API needed more controls for
> inserting/updating/deleting single assets, handling offline XHR calls etc.
> What I was really hoping for was the DataCache API[1] to take off but this
> seems to of stalled and no longer looks like it will be developed further.
>
> I do believe plenty of developers know about the application cache but it's
> not exactly a "sexy" technology that gets huge attention. Perhaps this could
> be changed with some compelling use-cases.
>
>
>>
>> ## Two naive questions ##
>> After reading a large amount of documentation, I have to admit that I
>> am myself confused about app cache:
>> Do you think it *can* be used as an auxiliary cache mechanism, and
>> what would be the limitations? The main problem I see is that there is
>> no way to white-list the referring document (e.g. index.html).
>> Currently, I would advocate *against* using it as an auxiliary cache.
>> Why isn't there any DOM API allowing a fine-grained control of the
>> application cache?
>> applicationCache.cache.add( URI );
>> applicationCache.cache.remove( URI );
>>
>
> See DataCache API[1]
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ryan
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/DataCache/
>