Re: Fixing appcache: a proposal to get us started

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> I don't get a good sense from this proposal (and NavigationController) about what the scope of an application is. E.g., if both
> and
> say that they both grab the URL
> who wins?
> More to the point, what's stopping
> from taking over responses from
> ?
> Also along these lines - I see an outstanding question that some people want to host multiple apps on the same URL. Is that really wise?
> If anything, I'd go the other way and say that one hostname = one app; then the scoping of and separation between apps is intuitive (e.g.,, You could even define a well-known location for the manifest, so that people could just type the hostname in to install / view the app...

This is, unfortunately, a great point.

The current AppCache spec suffers from this too, but only once users
go offline. I.e. I can use FALLBACK to take over using a resource from from

But that only works when the user is offline, which limits the damage a little.

The only solution that I can see to this problem is requiring that
manifests, or navigationcontroller-scripts are only allowed to "take
over" URLs that are "below" them. I.e. could only control
navigations to URLs with the prefix "".
You could still redirect resource loading in more flexible ways, but
maybe top-level page loads needs to have this restriction.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 04:21:22 UTC