- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:41:54 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Le 1 févr. 2012 à 20:03, Ian Hickson a écrit : >> - a calendar client > > There are lots of calendar clients written on the Web today. >> - an IMAP client > There are lots of mail clients written on the Web today. These are not web-apps that can work offline longer than 2 minutes. Android's GMail app is getting to be as bad. But otherwise, many imap clients exist as desktop or in-device applications. I think Tim is asking for something in the middle and the distance is pretty big. >> As a user when I install an app, I want to be able to give it access to >> a selection of: > > Providing access to these things when the app is installed is IMHO a net > worse security model than granting access to these things implicitly when > the feature is needed. And this is the reason the normal model has been: no security model at all. Desktop applications have been living well with some web interfacing... installing a web-app could start where desktop applications are then gradually go less demanding? Android goes somewhat in this direction with its app-security model... > Of the things you list, the following are already possible without an > up-front permission grant, in a manner more secure than an up-front grant: > >> - Program storage, to a limit >> - Whether it is permanently available or downloaded or cached for a while >> - Access to RAM at runtime, to a limit I don't know how well such limits are handled by browsers, I've seen a lot of browser crashes for these reasons. Pointer? >> - CPU time when in background, to a limit Same thing, the user-warning on slow script is not that limit! >> - Access to the net, maybe to a bandwidth limit really? >> - Ability to access anything on the web > > What's the use case for this? An editor importing a web-page? >> (I'll want to sync its local and shared data storage between all my >> devices too) > > That's possible without the site knowing anything about it. Chrome already > does it to some extent. Typical state of a young feature: Chrome does it without asking me, Firefox asks me if I want to use my own server ;-). >> If I can't give power to apps, then the web app platform cannot compete >> with native apps. > > There's plenty of things we can do to make the Web platform more > compelling and a better competitor to native apps, but adding "installing" > isn't one of them. That would in fact take one of the Web's current > significant advantages over native apps and kill it. when you consider the success of app-stores, I think that I do not share this view. paul
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 19:42:29 UTC