On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Doug Turner <doug.tur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you think that NC is the right soluction here?
At a high level it seems like the kind of low-level API we want to expose. The details are still muddy, we need implementation experience and developer feedback for that. > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Offline not working seems like the #1 problem >> of the web platform, > > There are lots of problems with the web platform. Offline support is one of > them, yes. :) Agreed. Are there bigger problems, though? The impression I get from developers is that offline is the main reason to develop native applications over web applications. There are other reasons, too, but not having offline solved is a dealbreaker. >> so working on this API does not really feel >> premature to me. > > My issue wasn't if we were going to work on the 'off-line' problem or not. > It was mostly around stating we're going to implement prematurely. It might > be I don't really understand what the "Intent to implement" blink-like > emails really mean.. if you say this, when is it going to show up in a FF > release? The intent to implement helps us to know what ends up in our codebase and lets us evaluate early on whether we think that's a good idea long term. Intent to ship will be used to indicate when it shows up in a FF (seems Fx lost :-)) release. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
