Comments on: HTML5 app manifests – are we emulating failure?

By: Stomme poes

Stomme poes — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:30:50 +0000

groovecoder’s post reminded me of this one that flew by the other day: http://tommorris.org/posts/8070 (“No, I’m not going to download your bullshit app”).

The argument for having app standards is of course separate from the argument that it’s anti-user (anti-people and therefore anti-customer) to require people to perform 32 separate steps while dancing on one foot and setting their hair on fire to do something that’s supposed to be “easy”.

By: Dew Drop – February 7, 2013 (#1,495) | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

Dew Drop – February 7, 2013 (#1,495) | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:03:57 +0000

[...] HTML5 app manifests – are we emulating failure? (Bruce Lawson) [...]

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:09:03 +0000

groovecoder – yes, I did. Thanks for writing them. The central problem is, sadly, “not invented here”ism. Everyone should sit and hammer out a way to do this interoperably. I don’t much care whether the spec using XML, JSON, Bison. As HTML5 shows us, interoperability trumps spec elegance any time.

And a standard for browser extensions would be nice too!

By: groovecoder

groovecoder — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:56:39 +0000

I hope you read the follow-up about building an HTML5 app store. I linked to your post about the competing app manifests, and suggested a way to build an HTML5 app search engine even with the competing standards by using schema.org WebApplication/browserRequirements.

But I’m with you – I don’t understand why Mozilla (my employer) and Google are pushing on with their own manifest formats. I’m sure there are reasons, but I’m not sure what they are or why we aren’t bringing those reasons to a W3C standard discussion.

By: Patrick H. Lauke

Patrick H. Lauke — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:13:07 +0000

not invented here / JSON is better than XML / we want lock-in … the triumvirate of reasons why this will not happen in the foreseeable future