- From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:28:58 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 16 Sep 2011, at 13:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > >> IMO, keeping them together will lead to confusion. The use cases are >> different: a widget can embed content that uses ApplicationCache, as >> well as load in proprietary APIs (e.g., WAC). > > Surely a Web-applicationcached app could also load proprietary APIs. And > an application cache could also have a widget as part of its list of > cacheable resources. > >> It can be used for defining other classes of applications and formats >> (e.g., Opera Extensions). > > I can also imagine using ApplicationCache to do that. I can imagine using all kinds of other things to do that. The point is, I don't want to, I want to use one standard way to do it along with all other companies in the space so we have a market, not a whole bunch of non-interoperating silos, and have a consistent message for users. I don't really understand what the point is of putting these things together. Other than to annoy Marcos of course :) > > Widgets and ApplicationCache differ in some ways (e.g. the security > model of widgets is different, widgets currently don't have an origin, > etc), but I still don't see how they would fundamentally address > different use cases. > > Dom > > >
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 16:29:37 UTC