Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Arthur Barstow]

On Apr/4/2011 2:20 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
(again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component
to use to file feature requests for Offline Web apps.

If one wants to send e-mail and be guaranteed a response, then the
wha...@whatwg.org list will be most effective.

If one wants to discuss the issue within the W3C context, then
public-h...@w3.org is the list most appropriate for the current spec text.


On Apr/4/2011 3:06 AM, ext Charles Pritchard wrote:

> I'd prefer to see discussion continue on public-webapps . I'm not 
against cross posting.



Since Offline Web applications is being specified by the HTML WG we 
should respect their request to use public-html for related discussions.


I suspect most of us are generally opposed to cross posting. However, in 
this case, if there are no strong objections, my preference is for 
public-webapps to be cross-posted on discussions about Offline Web 
applications.


-Art Barstow

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Charles Pritchard]

On 4/3/2011 11:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could
provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications
(again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component
to use to file feature requests for Offline Web apps.

If one wants to send e-mail and be guaranteed a response, then the
wha...@whatwg.org list will be most effective.

If one wants to discuss the issue within the W3C context, then
public-h...@w3.org is the list most appropriate for the current spec text.


I'd prefer to see discussion continue on public-webapps . I'm not 
against cross posting.


"Offline" apps are the first and only instance of an 'installable' 
applications implementation across vendors.


At some point, I hope to see some discussion about an installation manifest,
for apps which require privileges across origins and/or other enhanced 
access.


This seems to be the direction things are going (from Google's Chrome):

chrome.app.install()

That scheme allows the author to provide a user with a choice, prior
to prompting them for permissions.

For an application vendor, that's mighty helpful, as some users reject:
"Do you want to grant this website access to 
EVERYTHING--or-it-will-not-work",

but accept: "Do you want to grant this website access to this one domain".

Google Chrome
http://code.google.com/intl/en-US/chrome/apps/docs/no_crx.html
chrome.app.install()

Mozilla Firefox
https://mozillalabs.com/blog/2011/03/first-developer-release-of-web-apps-project/
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/OpenWebApps/The_Manifest
navigator.apps.install()

Those two vendors are converging.

 seems more appropriate for icons. Apple is taking that route.

HTML manifest files seem appropriate for requesting same-origin exceptions,
which is part of why I'm keeping an eye on this thread.

Those .install() calls are still a good idea, as vendors have their own 
unique extensions and distribution mechanisms.


I don't expect to get background pages / content pages into a web apps 
spec any time soon.
They're the same concept across Firefox/Chrome/Safari, but there are a 
lot of surrounding details.



-Charles

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
> Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could 
> provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications 
> (again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component 
> to use to file feature requests for Offline Web apps.

If one wants to send e-mail and be guaranteed a response, then the 
wha...@whatwg.org list will be most effective.

If one wants to discuss the issue within the W3C context, then 
public-h...@w3.org is the list most appropriate for the current spec text.

If one wants to file a bug and be guaranteed a response, then open the 
WHATWG HTML Standard, click on the relevant section, and type the comment 
in the feedback form at the bottom right. It'll automatically pick the 
right component and so forth. I don't remember what the component is 
called off-hand, probably "HTML spec" or some such. You can also file a 
bug using the form at the top of the W3C draft that the feature is defined 
in, which is currently the HTML5 draft; that should also pick the right 
component but doesn't give me as much context. You can also file the bug 
directly in Bugzilla if you can work out which component to use.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi Michael,

I am also not subscribed to public-html so I don't know if the HTMLWG 
discussed splitting Offline Web apps into a separate spec. One of 
reasons Storage, Server-sent Events, etc. were split out of HTML5 spec 
is to permit those specs moving through the W3C's Recommendation track 
independent of HTML5 (although that does not necessarily mean they will 
proceed "faster").


Perhaps subscribers to both lists (Mike Smith, Maciej, Hixie) could 
provide some guidance on which list to use for Offline Web applications 
(again, I'm OK with public-webapps) and which Bugzilla product/component 
to use to file feature requests for Offline Web apps. (I didn't find a 
specific "offline" component under the HTMLWG's product list so it 
appears the general HTML5 spec component is used.)


I agree am implementation of proposed features should help the (W3C's) 
standardization effort.


-AB

On Apr/1/2011 7:46 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:

> How to standardize new Offline Web app features?

Something that can help with 'standardizing' a new feature is an 
implementation. Maybe I can help on that one by building the list of 
features mentioned earlier in this thread [1] into chrome. The first 
three bullets are fairly easy to come by but the fourth bullet will 
take some time, but once four is done, five should just fall out.


[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html



On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Michael Nordman > wrote:


Hi Art,

Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed
to the public-html list and honestly don't have  a good
understanding of which list is for what. I consider the feature
set provided in by the Application Cache to harmonize with other
topics discussed on the public-webapps list, so it seemed like the
natural place to discuss it. Actually Louis-Rémi started the
thread to which I responded.

Interesting question about moving the Offline Web Applications out
of HTML5 to a new home. I doesn't matter to me where this is
spec'd or discussed so much, what matters is that progress is made
as I think it's clear there is demand for "more" in this area. I
have not been party to any discussions about relocating the
Offline WebApps part of the HTML5 spec. Since you asked, I'm
guessing you think that could help with making faster progress?

-Michael

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Arthur Barstow
mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote:

Michael, All,

On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:

I have in mind several extensions to the ApplicationCache
that I think could address some of the additional
desirements from the web developement community. I'll post
them here because people seem to be more willing to have a
discussion on the topic here than over in whatwg.


From the process perspective, I think it is fine to discuss
this feature on public-webapps but since Offline Web
applications is defined in the HTML5 spec, I am curious why
you didn't use the public-html list.

BTW, has there been any discussion (e.g. in the WHATWG or
HTMLWG) about moving the Offline Web application  out of the
HTMLWG's HTML5 spec and into a separate spec? I'm wondering if
that could help facilitate the standardization of new features
like those you proposed in this thread [1].

-Art Barstow

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Michael Nordman]

> How to standardize new Offline Web app features?

Something that can help with 'standardizing' a new feature is an
implementation. Maybe I can help on that one by building the list of
features mentioned earlier in this thread [1] into chrome. The first three
bullets are fairly easy to come by but the fourth bullet will take some
time, but once four is done, five should just fall out.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html


On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Michael Nordman  wrote:

> Hi Art,
>
> Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
> public-html list and honestly don't have  a good understanding of which list
> is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
> to harmonize with other topics discussed on the public-webapps list, so it
> seemed like the natural place to discuss it. Actually Louis-Rémi started
> the thread to which I responded.
>
> Interesting question about moving the Offline Web Applications out of HTML5
> to a new home. I doesn't matter to me where this is spec'd or discussed so
> much, what matters is that progress is made as I think it's clear there is
> demand for "more" in this area. I have not been party to any discussions
> about relocating the Offline WebApps part of the HTML5 spec. Since you
> asked, I'm guessing you think that could help with making faster progress?
>
> -Michael
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> Michael, All,
>>
>> On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
>>
>>> I have in mind several extensions to the ApplicationCache that I think
>>> could address some of the additional desirements from the web developement
>>> community. I'll post them here because people seem to be more willing to
>>> have a discussion on the topic here than over in whatwg.
>>>
>>
>> From the process perspective, I think it is fine to discuss this feature
>> on public-webapps but since Offline Web applications is defined in the HTML5
>> spec, I am curious why you didn't use the public-html list.
>>
>> BTW, has there been any discussion (e.g. in the WHATWG or HTMLWG) about
>> moving the Offline Web application  out of the HTMLWG's HTML5 spec and into
>> a separate spec? I'm wondering if that could help facilitate the
>> standardization of new features like those you proposed in this thread [1].
>>
>> -Art Barstow
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Nathan]

Michael Nordman wrote:

Hi Art,

Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
public-html list and honestly don't have  a good understanding of which list
is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
to harmonize with other topics discussed on the public-webapps list, so it
seemed like the natural place to discuss it. Actually Louis-Rémi started the
thread to which I responded.

Interesting question about moving the Offline Web Applications out of HTML5
to a new home. I doesn't matter to me where this is spec'd or discussed so
much, what matters is that progress is made as I think it's clear there is
demand for "more" in this area. I have not been party to any discussions
about relocating the Offline WebApps part of the HTML5 spec. Since you
asked, I'm guessing you think that could help with making faster progress?


They do seem awfully related to the Widgets specifications though..

Re: How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Michael Nordman]

Hi Art,

Please don't assume I know how the w3c works. I'm not subscribed to the
public-html list and honestly don't have  a good understanding of which list
is for what. I consider the feature set provided in by the Application Cache
to harmonize with other topics discussed on the public-webapps list, so it
seemed like the natural place to discuss it. Actually Louis-Rémi started the
thread to which I responded.

Interesting question about moving the Offline Web Applications out of HTML5
to a new home. I doesn't matter to me where this is spec'd or discussed so
much, what matters is that progress is made as I think it's clear there is
demand for "more" in this area. I have not been party to any discussions
about relocating the Offline WebApps part of the HTML5 spec. Since you
asked, I'm guessing you think that could help with making faster progress?

-Michael

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Michael, All,
>
> On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
>
>> I have in mind several extensions to the ApplicationCache that I think
>> could address some of the additional desirements from the web developement
>> community. I'll post them here because people seem to be more willing to
>> have a discussion on the topic here than over in whatwg.
>>
>
> From the process perspective, I think it is fine to discuss this feature on
> public-webapps but since Offline Web applications is defined in the HTML5
> spec, I am curious why you didn't use the public-html list.
>
> BTW, has there been any discussion (e.g. in the WHATWG or HTMLWG) about
> moving the Offline Web application  out of the HTMLWG's HTML5 spec and into
> a separate spec? I'm wondering if that could help facilitate the
> standardization of new features like those you proposed in this thread [1].
>
> -Art Barstow
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html
>
>
>

How to standardize new Offline Web app features? [Was Re: Offline Web Applications status]

[Arthur Barstow]

Michael, All,

On Mar/31/2011 6:18 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
I have in mind several extensions to the ApplicationCache that I think 
could address some of the additional desirements from the web 
developement community. I'll post them here because people seem to be 
more willing to have a discussion on the topic here than over in whatwg.


From the process perspective, I think it is fine to discuss this 
feature on public-webapps but since Offline Web applications is defined 
in the HTML5 spec, I am curious why you didn't use the public-html list.


BTW, has there been any discussion (e.g. in the WHATWG or HTMLWG) about 
moving the Offline Web application  out of the HTMLWG's HTML5 spec and 
into a separate spec? I'm wondering if that could help facilitate the 
standardization of new features like those you proposed in this thread [1].


-Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1121.html