[whatwg] Proposed additions to ClientInformation interface
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Jan 16 16:13:56 PST 2009
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think there are two competing ideas here that are sometimes in
> A) Web applications are just Web pages and should be indistinguishable
> from any other Web page.
> B) Web applications are just applications and should be
> indistinguishable from any other (e.g. native) application.
> Obviously the Web platform has a long way to go to really achieve B, and
> it is important to preserve the strengths of the Web in the course of
> making Web applications give something closer to a native experience
> (security, accessibility, ubiquitousness, platform-independence, etc).
> The way I think of standalone(*) Web applications is that they should
> work well in the browser context, but be able to provide progressive
> enhancement when in standalone mode. For example, native applications
> have custom icons in the Dock under Mac OS X, but pages in a browser
> window do not, so we let Web applications have the ability to customize
> the icon only when running in standalone mode.
> * - When I say "standalone Web application" I am referring to mechanisms
> like Mozilla Prism, Fluid, and Safari 4's "Save as Web Application"
> I am probably largely preaching to the choir here, but I wanted to give
> the premises for our thinking.
The above makes sense to me.
> > > In support of this new area of interest, I propose two new additions
> > > to the ClientInformation interface as follows:
> > >
> > > First: "readonly attribute boolean standalone;"
> > I am very concerned about Web authors doing exactly this, and would in
> > fact strongly like to encourage authors not to do this. Can you give
> > an example of a use case where there would be a difference?
> We did not initially think there was a need for this, but multiple
> developer requests changed our mind. In retrospect, however, they all
> boil down to customizing the UI when the window's toolbar is not present
> (to use the extra space on small fixed-size screens, or to add visual
> weight to the top of the window on large screens). And this can already
> be determined via "toolbar.visible". In fact that would do the right
> thing even in user agents that always or never show a toolbar, so that
> is probably the right thing to recommend.
> The other possible use case would be to avoid displaying any "save as
> Web app" UI, but that is better handled by that feature.
> Brady, what do you think? Would toolbar.visible work ok for this?
I've specced out window.toolbar.visible.
> > Things like changing the look based on what the author knows of the
> > "standalone mode" of their own browser is very dangerous, as it would
> > result in things clashing with other browsers' looks and feels.
> Browsers do already report some information about the UI, and it is
> probably better to reuse that than to invent something new that has a
> less direct relationship.
Do you have any implementation experience with <bb type="makeapp">?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg