I don't know why I wouldn't just choose app engine, gwt, and chrome's web store.
Mozilla Open Web App prototype
21–30 of 48 posts
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#22Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#23I don't really know how is this better than launching a site and using a Paypal gateway integrated into the site. I don't really know how will this solve XSS and other security problems the web has. What problems are these app stores supposed to fix?
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What problems are these app stores supposed to fix? You've completely missed the point. The feature isn't an app store. It's browser based applications you can download and install on your computer, and run locally. The browser is merely the engine the runs the application. They'll probably remove the chrome, and instead of acting like a browser and a web page, it will merely be the application.
It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps, we were moving away from that and making lots of progress and now all of a sudden many are eager to return back to local desktop, but this time running inside a browser, doesn't make any sense at all. We should be moving forward, rather than going backwards.
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#25I'm a big fan of the "defer commitment" principle. It seems speculative and dangerous to try to create new standards in a field that is evolving so rapidly. We've had a lot of form factor innovation like smartphones and tablets. Other relevant areas like online payments are ripe for innovation as well. How will these new standards respond to the need for matching innovation? Who will maintain them? Will there be vers…
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's probably because the point makes no sense. There's no reason to go back to desktop apps Yes, there is. Being able to install a web app locally means several things immediately: 1. Local and remote storage of data beyond what traditional web apps can accomplish. 2. Snappier applications, since everything is stored locally. 3. You'll still be capable of being connected remotely. 4. Ability to use the app even if…
To be fair, very little of what's proposed in this project changes any of those points. You can already store data locally using localStorage APIs. You can already cache application content/scripts/resources locally using HTML Manifest files, which also let you use the application when you aren't connected to the net. And of course, you can always access remote resources when you are (even across domains using the ne…
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#27GMail, etc. has already proven that the browser provides a rich enough UI experience to replace desktop apps, but the general lack of integration with the services of an operating system still forces me to either (1) use desktop apps for some things or (2) go through convoluted processes.
An example: I used to work on a large photo sharing site, and making it easy for non-technical users to upload photos was important but difficult. A desktop app has the advantage of being able to recognize connected hardware, interrogate obscure file structures (DSIM blah, etc.), and show the user a pretty grid of photos from the camera -- all triggered on the hardware connection event. Recently, I told my dad to use Picasa as an uploading front-end. His eyes glaze over when I have to tell him how to navigate a directory structure, so a site which requires HTTP Upload is DOA for him. HTML5 will provide multi-file select, but the degree of available automation is terrible when compared to the desktop.
Here's what I'd like to see: A set of standard, OS-agnostic profiles for services provided by an operating system and common peripherals which would allow web-based apps to do things like slurp photos from a camera, print a pixel-perfect document, or capture a scanned image. Operating system vendors (or 3rd parties) could wrap OS-specific driver profiles with these Javascript/Browser-accessible APIs, and users could grant certain domains the rights to use them. Imagine a TWAIN driver wrapper for Windows which would allow a webapp to initiate a scanning request and capture the image without the user saving the file to disk and then uploading it.
The proposed notifications service is kind of like this except that it is designed to receive notifications from a bunch of sites even if no webapp is currently running.
I think the search service design should be inverted. There should be a standard search service interface which sites could implement, but the local operating system should implement this same interface and should be queried in parallel. A user could search for photos on his photo sharing site, a Dropbox-esque site, AND his local filesystem. But, the search service itself could be SaaS. Why make the desktop heavier?
What about a dialer/voice profile for mobile devices (and desktop as well)? What about a "screen management" profile which would allow a web-based Powerpoint competitor to automatically show the presentation on the projector but the slide notes on the laptop monitor? What other profiles would be interesting which could reduce the need for applications to target specific operating systems? What about a "headless" profile and a "system tray" profile so that Pandora could be implemented using a combination of HTML5 audio, an icon on the system tray, and the notification service for song titles?
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#28I love Mozilla for their efforts. I hate to be pessimistic, but I'm just not sure this is what the world needs.
Re: Mozilla Open Web App prototype
#29From the feature list: "Can request access to one or more advanced and/or privacy-sensitive capabilities" and "Can receive notifications from the cloud." GMail, etc. has already proven that the browser provides a rich enough UI experience to replace desktop apps, but the general lack of integration with the services of an operating system still forces me to either (1) use desktop apps for some things or (2) go throug…
What's different here? The entity you trust to provide you with a secure browser is the same entity providing a set of profiles, and you would opt into which sites could access these profiles. And, there's no "run arbitrary code" profile.