Actually maybe I don't find my own points here all that compelling. :) Points #1 and #2 aren't death blows, and point #3 could possibly be treated as orthogonal; e.g. if we had a URL approach to packaging we could *also* have a <link> tag that effectively rewrites URLs to package URLs. (Or this could even be polyfilled with service worker.) I'm still open to the URL approach, or frankly any approach that works. Jonas is working on spelling out all the requirements in this space as clearly as possible, and I'll keep working with him to help however I can. We can reach out to people who care most about this, including the TAG and Dimitri and the web components crew.
Dave On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Dave Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > A new URL scheme wouldn't work at all; relative addressing and different > existing schemes (eg http vs https) would be broken. Or did you mean a new > URL separator? I favored that approach at first but Jeni's <link>-based > proposal has a couple key benefits over doing it through URLs: > > 1. It's hard to find a separator that won't break existing content. Whatever > it is it would certainly be ugly, but I'm not even sure what it would be. > > 2. Using the <link> tag makes degradation much easier; it's just a tag > browsers ignore, and then the server gets requests for normal paths of > individual assets like "/foo/bar/baz.png" instead of "/foo.pkg". With the URL > approach servers have to handle requests from old browsers with the funky > separator like "/foo.pkg!//bar/baz.png". > > 3. Most critical: the <link> tag is a localized change to your HTML when you > decide to package up a directory, whereas the URL approach requires changing > lots of references all over your HTML. > > Dave > > > Sent with AquaMail for Android > http://www.aqua-mail.com > > > On June 26, 2014 5:18:00 AM Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: >> > However if we can enable developers to sign their own applications, >> > rather than having to have them signed by the marketplace, then that >> > would still mean that developers could roll out updates as quickly as >> > web developers do today. I.e. no need to wait for review from a >> > marketplace. >> >> Could you elaborate on this? I thought part of the point of allowing >> certain features to be used was that we could inspect the code and >> make sure nothing malicious was going on. Do we actually secure things >> in a different way? >> >> >> > Additionally packages bring other advantages. The W3C TAG is currently >> > working on creating a standardized packaging format for the web. They >> > are doing this for at least a couple of reasons. >> >> Note that what the TAG is working on now does not have the new URL >> scheme. It only works for subresources of an HTML document. That >> seemed somewhat disappointing to me, but nobody else cared much. >> >> >> PS: That was an amazing email. I'm sorry I missed it initially. Andrew >> had to point it out to me. It captures the entire picture really well. >> Thanks! >> >> >> -- >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ > _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
