- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:20:12 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Web and Mobile IG <public-web-mobile@w3.org>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013 9:25 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > We currently have both <script>...</script> and <script src="...">, as
>> > well as both <style>...</style> and <style src>. A big reason we have
>> > both is for author convenience.
>>
>>
>> I thought this was because <script> and <style> are “this page’s script
>> and style” (i.e., the scope is very specific).
>>
>> This is different to the manifest, which is “this loosely grouped set of
>> navigable resources forms a web-app”.
>
> Some web-apps are single-page. If they are simple enough I don't see
> anything wrong with that.
I think we shouldn't optimize for the single-page case. Even
single-page apps probably have some bitmaps that they don't include as
data: URLs. On the other hand, for multi-page apps and inline manifest
would be really inefficient. That is, external-only manifests seem
quite reasonable to me.
> <meta name=manifest content='{
> "a": 1,
> "b": "foopy"
> }'>
Are manifests really short enough for this kind of thing?
What happened to the idea from February to stick a JSON-based caching
description that desugars into NavigationController into the same
manifest? Are we absolutely sure that we don't want the manifest to
grow to do AppCache-ish things that pretty much require the
declaration to be an attribute on <html>?
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
http://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 14:20:43 UTC