- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:09:43 +0300
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 12/10/2011, at 4:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:56:09 +0900, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> • Rationale: AppCache is clearly not of the same maturity and quality as the rest of the HTML5 specification; take-up has been quite slow, and it's often remarked that it's confusing and surprising to developers. While the W3C is planning a workshop to help adoption, it's not at all clear that AppCache is a suitable base for offline Web applications. Furthermore, it is a clearly separable part of the HTML specification. >> >> A. It is widely implemented and used quite a bit too. > > Those are by nature subjective judgements, of course. However, the fact that the W3C feels the need to sponsor a workshop whose goal can be accurately paraphrased as "let's figure out why the hell people aren't using AppCache and Widgets," it's a good indication that something's wrong. We don't know yet how badly app cache is wrong after you have working code developed for it and how much the badness relates to lack of diagnostics during development, development-time code getting stuck in the cache, etc. (i.e. how much tools could save us on top of the base mechanism). In any case, "widely implemented" isn't really a subjective claim, it's easy to check on caniuse: http://caniuse.com/#feat=offline-apps Even if the conclusion was that app cache is pain to work with, it doesn't follow that it can be removed from the platform or that we could spec-wise pretend it doesn't exist. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 12:10:48 UTC